Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

World’s 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,854 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:30 PM

World’s 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over

Posted Image

The world's 100 richest people earned a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over, Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further enriching the super-rich.

“The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process,” while the income of the top 0.01 percent has seen even greater growth, a new Oxfam report said.

For example, the luxury goods market has seen double-digit growth every year since the crisis hit, the report stated. And while the world's 100 richest people earned $240 billion last year, people in "extreme poverty" lived on less than $1.25 a day.

Oxfam is a leading international philanthropy organization. Its new report, ‘The Cost of Inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt us All,’ argues that the extreme concentration of wealth actually hinders the world’s ability to reduce poverty.

The report was published before the World Economic Forum in Davos next week, and calls on world leaders to “end extreme wealth by 2025, and reverse the rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last 20 years.”

Oxfam's report argues that extreme wealth is unethical, economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive.

The problem is a global one, Oxfam said: "In the UK inequality is rapidly returning to levels not seen since the time of Charles Dickens. In China the top 10 percent now take home nearly 60 percent of the income. Chinese inequality levels are now similar to those in South Africa, which is now the most unequal country on Earth and significantly more [inequality] than at the end of apartheid."

In the US, the richest 1 percent's share of income has doubled since 1980 from 10 to 20 percent, according to the report. For the top 0.01 percent, their share of national income quadrupled, reaching levels never seen before.

“We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true,” Executive Director of Oxfam International Jeremy Hobbs said.

Hobbs explained that concentration of wealth in the hands of the top few minimizes economic activity, making it harder for others to participate: “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favor.”

The report highlights that even politics has become controlled by the super-wealthy, which leads to policies “benefitting the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies.”
“It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite,” the report said.

The four-day World Economic Forum will be held in Davos starting next Wednesday. World financial leaders will gather for an annual meeting that will focus on reviving the global economy, the eurozone crisis and the conflicts in Syria and Mali.

The report proposes a new global deal to world leaders to curb extreme poverty to 1990s levels by:
- closing tax havens, yielding $189bn in additional tax revenues
- reversing regressive forms of taxation
- introducing a global minimum corporation tax rate
- boosting wages proportional to capital returns
- increasing investment in free public services

http://rt.com/news/o...inequality-357/



Oxfam seeks 'new deal' on inequality from world leaders

Posted Image

The 100 richest people in the world earned enough last year to end extreme poverty suffered by the poorest on the planet four times over, Oxfam has said. Ahead of next week's World Economic Forum in Switzerland, the charity urged world leaders to tackle inequality.

Extreme wealth was "economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive", the report said.
The global economic system required reform so that it worked "in the interests of the whole of humanity".

A four-day summit involving political and economic leaders runs in Davos from next Wednesday.
In its report entitled The Cost Of Inequality: How Wealth And Income Extremes Hurt Us All, the UK charity said that efforts to tackle poverty were being hindered by an "explosion in extreme wealth".
The richest one per cent of the world's population had increased its income by 60% in the last 20 years, Oxfam said.

It reported that while the world's 100 richest people enjoyed a net income of $240bn (£150bn) last year, people in "extreme poverty" lived on less than $1.25 (78p) a day.

"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many - too often the reverse is true," said Oxfam chief executive Barbara Stocking.

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top 1% depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else - particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder."
The charity called for a "global new deal to reverse decades of increasing inequality".

Its suggestions for leaders due at the Davos summit include:

  • Closure of tax havens around the world
  • A reversal of "the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation"
  • A global minimum corporation tax rate
  • Increased investment in free public services and safety nets for people out of work or ill
"As a first step world leaders should formally commit themselves to reducing inequality to the levels seen in 1990," Ms Stocking said.

"From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour.

"It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21094962



Equality at Davos

Posted Image

At $240 billion (Dh880 billion), the wealth accumulated in 2012 by the world's 100 richest individuals could have ended extreme poverty four times over. That statistic was published this week by the charity Oxfam ahead of the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, where some of the wealthiest and most powerful will gather to discuss global challenges, poverty among them.


Extreme poverty must be tackled with unified effort, from individuals, corporations and governments together. Extreme hunger, in which people go days without food or water, puts a heavy ethical burden on those with more to provide for those with less.

But there is another "extreme" that will frame the debate at Davos, if only from the sidelines. And that's the issue of extreme wealth. Do the haves have too much? As Oxfam sees it, extreme wealth is "economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive", and "depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else" - especially those at the bottom.

Global challenges can't be solved over five days at a ski resort in the Alps. But if the world's privileged paused for a moment to ponder whether their riches could be better spent, we would all benefit.


http://www.thenation...uality-at-davos



The report by OXFAM (PDF):
http://www.oxfam.org...am-mb180113.pdf


  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#2 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:36 PM

But if they did that than they wouldn't have multiple solid gold toilets in each of their mansion. Once you have one you can never go back to "normal people toilets"
  • 1
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....


#3 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:38 PM

*
POPULAR

In before the haters.

These people have worked hard to get to where they are and you hate them because you aren't in their position.
  • 10

#4 Where's Wellwood

Where's Wellwood

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:39 PM

But they still didn't make enough to cover the US's debt.
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to khalifawiz501 for the sig.
My old sig: http://tinypic.com/v...=5#.UlSrrlAWJ7U

#5 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

In before the haters.

These people have worked hard to get to where they are and you hate them because you aren't in their position.

What's funny is these people won't be donating a huge chunk of their own salary to the poor, they just want others to do it. Hypocrites.
  • 3

#6 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,189 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

yes, money is the solution.
  • 0

#7 Buttock

Buttock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:51 PM

In before the haters.

These people have worked hard to get to where they are and you hate them because you aren't in their position.


I wonder how hard you have to work to earn a billion dollars - or how one person's labour can possibly be worth that much!

It can't, of course. The market is overvaluing what these people contribute and systematically undervaluing other things.
  • 0

#8 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:54 PM

I wonder how hard you have to work to earn a billion dollars - or how one person's labour can possibly be worth that much!

It can't, of course. The market is overvaluing what these people contribute and systematically undervaluing other things.

No, actually, it's you who undervalues what their contributions are, because the market already decided their contributions were just fine to get them that rich in the first place.

Working hard is obviously irrelevant, and there's no greater example than comparing the same hours worked by a hard working McDonalds fast food employee and, say, a hard working engineer. Fast food employee is determined, by the market, to have far less value of work.

Edited by zaibatsu, 20 January 2013 - 05:00 PM.

  • 2

#9 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,793 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 20 January 2013 - 05:00 PM

240 billion earned by 100 individuals?

When you get to the point where you're making a billion a year, you'd think it's about time to retire. At that point, it goes beyond feeding your family, having nice things, etc., etc., and becomes a verifiable sickness.

There's only so much to go around. Every billionaire is a thousand less millionaires.
  • 1
Posted Image

#10 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,763 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 20 January 2013 - 05:29 PM

I wonder how hard you have to work to earn a billion dollars - or how one person's labour can possibly be worth that much!

It can't, of course. The market is overvaluing what these people contribute and systematically undervaluing other things.


"No one earns a billion dollars. You steal a billion dollars."
  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

rsz_theylive.jpg 11477626583_2368927097.jpg  7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#11 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 20 January 2013 - 08:40 PM

There's always been inequality, and in North America it was actually worse in the past (Robber Barons, company stores etc), but makes it a different scenario compared to earlier times is the level of artificial scarsity, where basically we must pay though the nose time/resources wise for so many things which should have little actual value.

Also there's the fact that human labor is going to lose out to automation in many industries very soon, where you'll have machines performing all sorts of service and production jobs at a fraction of the cost. Just don't expect an according price drop.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#12 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 20 January 2013 - 09:04 PM

I must be missing something in the math here. They say that $240B would eliminate extreme poverty four times over, but in the article notes it refers to another article that states Jeff Sachs has estimated that it would cost $175 billion a year for 2 years to end extreme poverty.

$175B for 2 years would be $350B, four times over would be $1.4T which is a great deal more than $240B. <_<
  • 0
Posted Image

#13 McMillan

McMillan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,974 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 07

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:17 PM

I always find it funny how quick people are to defend these billionaires and capitalism as a whole. The best thing the billionaires ever did for themselves was make the general population believe that capitalism is good. Honestly I fail to see the difference between today and back when we had kings and emperors. Honestly the working class is nothing but slaves to these people. Sure we can "choose" our choice of slavery but we still struggle to survive in this glorious capitalist world. I mean it must be so good since we allow an elite few (Modern day kings and emperors) to live a life so far beyond our reach that no common man could truly imagine what it'd be like to live off $60,000 a day while most people strive just to be able to afford their own home and retire without reaching poverty. Socialism isn't a bad thing in a single bit. Nor are high tax rates on the rich. I mean honestly what's paying 10MM in taxes when you made 20MM?
  • 3

Posted Image

Thanks VC for the sig!

Demo was great, but I'm a two-way guy.


#14 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,042 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:37 PM

What's funny is these people won't be donating a huge chunk of their own salary to the poor, they just want others to do it. Hypocrites.


Actually buddy , i give between 10-15 % of what i earn every year to people less fortunate than i am .

You just love to mock others don't you :sadno:
  • 2

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#15 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,042 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:41 PM


  • 1

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#16 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,913 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:06 AM

I always find it funny how quick people are to defend these billionaires and capitalism as a whole. The best thing the billionaires ever did for themselves was make the general population believe that capitalism is good. Honestly I fail to see the difference between today and back when we had kings and emperors. Honestly the working class is nothing but slaves to these people. Sure we can "choose" our choice of slavery but we still struggle to survive in this glorious capitalist world. I mean it must be so good since we allow an elite few (Modern day kings and emperors) to live a life so far beyond our reach that no common man could truly imagine what it'd be like to live off $60,000 a day while most people strive just to be able to afford their own home and retire without reaching poverty. Socialism isn't a bad thing in a single bit. Nor are high tax rates on the rich. I mean honestly what's paying 10MM in taxes when you made 20MM?


I gave you a plus but it's not because I agree with you; I don't. I like your post because I see where you're coming from, particularly with the Kings/serfdom comparison.

For those people - people making 20MM, these individuals took on ENORMOUS risk in order to make that amount. It's not fair that they are taxed that much as you say. It's a risk that we cannot even fathom. Is it fair that their mistakes cost everyone else? No.

For example, the subprime mortgage issue - can we at our work mismanage money/assets and not get consequences? No. But banks did - and a lot got bailout packages. There are no second chances for the rest of us. That's just life.

Socialism, while noble in intentions, doesn't really solve the real problems. That being said, I'm not endorsing capitalism at all though.

There is value in work that you do, although the pay salary that you get may not necessarily reflect how hard you worked.

That's life.

Paramedics, for example, have hectic work schedules but generally get paid less than teachers who have far better working environments. Paramedics and teachers both provide necessities in society - so how would you determine who deserves a higher pay? The dynamics of the work that they do are also very different.

I don't belong to a billionaire OR millionaire family and while I do concede that those people that I mentioned make an unhealthy amount of money, their efforts are how society is run. So going back to the paramedic and teacher example, how do you determine how much these millionaires/billionares should be paid for the work that they do? It's supply and demand.

How can one argue that they worked harder than the other? It is all perspective. For hockey players, we see them making bundles of money easily, playing a game that we see. But their path to being a hockey player isn't easy - they have to eat healthy (no junk food!), work out, practice their skills, travel all over the place, get yelled at by media/fans whenever they have a bad game and more. You and I will probably agree that their lifestyle seems infinitely easier than how we run our lives. But if that were the case, everyone would be hockey players making millions of dollars.

Capitalism is vulnerable to corruption and greed - something that we see everywhere in the world by corporations. But socialism doesn't mean that it isn't vulnerable to that. Ever notice that all the ruling parties of countries worldwide in history that call themselves 'Socialist' are facades of what that political alignment is?

The problem is not about capitalism/socialism - the problem is us as people. We are very imperfect and we are vulnerable to greed/corruption. So as I said before, socialism nor capitalism doesn't solve the real problems in the world today.

Edited by Dazzle, 21 January 2013 - 12:12 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#17 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:08 AM

yes, money is the solution.


Winner.

Giving people money or just paying debt isn't going to do anything.
  • 1

#18 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,500 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:28 AM

Winner.

Giving people money or just paying debt isn't going to do anything.


Loser ....

Giving mental defectives a voice via the Internets caused all of this ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#19 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:31 AM

Loser ....

Giving mental defectives a voice via the Internets caused all of this ..


lol, Who is this clown?
  • 2

#20 Dral

Dral

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:38 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xa3wyaEe9vE


If you want to compare the 'psychological' traits of inanimate or conceptual objects with those of a psychopath, I think toasters are a much better example.

Corporations can actually have meaningful relationships with others (might be rare, but it does happen). Toasters? Never! The longest relationship they ever have is about 30 seconds (unless you want to count the relationship they have with the wall socket but perhaps we shouldn't go there...)

And not once has my toaster EVER apologized to me for burning my bread.
  • 0

#21 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:46 AM

If you want to compare the 'psychological' traits of inanimate or conceptual objects with those of a psychopath, I think toasters are a much better example.

Corporations can actually have meaningful relationships with others (might be rare, but it does happen). Toasters? Never! The longest relationship they ever have is about 30 seconds (unless you want to count the relationship they have with the wall socket but perhaps we shouldn't go there...)

And not once has my toaster EVER apologized to me for burning my bread.

Posted Image
  • 0

#22 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,042 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:49 AM

If you want to compare the 'psychological' traits of inanimate or conceptual objects with those of a psychopath, I think toasters are a much better example.

Corporations can actually have meaningful relationships with others (might be rare, but it does happen). Toasters? Never! The longest relationship they ever have is about 30 seconds (unless you want to count the relationship they have with the wall socket but perhaps we shouldn't go there...)

And not once has my toaster EVER apologized to me for burning my bread.


I love my toaster , IT TOASTS and my toaster never burns my bread , it always turns out golden delicious bit of toast .
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#23 Dral

Dral

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,557 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:01 AM

Posted Image


HA! No.
  • 0

#24 Samuel Påhlsson

Samuel Påhlsson

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 674 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:49 AM

Waiting on robin hood.

Edited by Samuel Pahlsson, 21 January 2013 - 01:49 AM.

  • 0

SYvE9NH.gif


#25 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,854 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:18 PM

Waiting on robin hood.


Rob 'n da hood
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#26 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,304 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:42 PM

1) A 60% increase over the last 20 years, really isn't that much. That more or less just inflation.

2) Also, even if you through that money at "poverty" you wouldn't end that. There are complex geo-political forces at work here. Not to mention local issues like discrimination, class/caste systems, corruption, etc...

That being said, I'm sure there are many people in that top 100 doing less than ethical/legal things to stay on top.
  • 0

#27 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 03:58 PM

The rich donates the most amount of money to charity too.
  • 0

#28 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,116 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:18 PM

I'd love to see numbers on how many self-made "Bill Gates'" there are versus trust fund babies who've gotten richer off of teams of lawyers, investment/market experts and the exploitation of the poor...
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#29 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,019 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

I'd love to see numbers on how many self-made "Bill Gates'" there are versus trust fund babies who've gotten richer off of teams of lawyers, investment/market experts and the exploitation of the poor...


Obviously a significant inheritance tax (or call it a death tax I don't care) that counts the money as income with a decent exemption (100k? 1 Million?, Basically enough to pass on an average family home?) so that it really only hits the oligarchs is an obvious solution.

If someone super rich didn't want to have the government take the money they still have the power to give away the majority of their fortune to charities (which is precisely what the more famous self made billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are doing.)
  • 0

#30 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,019 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:19 PM

I must be missing something in the math here. They say that $240B would eliminate extreme poverty four times over, but in the article notes it refers to another article that states Jeff Sachs has estimated that it would cost $175 billion a year for 2 years to end extreme poverty.

$175B for 2 years would be $350B, four times over would be $1.4T which is a great deal more than $240B. <_<


You actually expect the bleeding hearts to be able to do math? It's not like they need to their audience certainly doesn't have any interest in it.

Oh, and if someone did magically find a 1.4 trillion dollar a year fund to give to the needy what are the odds they actually get it?

As a case study look at all the money that was pledged to Haiti and how much actually got there.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.