The world's seven richest men could wipe out global poverty

[Edric O]

...and that was in 1997. Since then, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, so now it would probably only take the world's six richest men to wipe out global poverty.

Nothing exposes to bankrupcy and immorality of conservative policy better than a few simple facts about global capitalism. Here is a 1997 article that I recently found:

The world's seven richest men could wipe out global poverty. Their combined wealth is more than enough to provide the basic needs of the poorest quarter of the world's people.

According to the UN's 1997 Human Development Report (HDR), published today, it would cost just $80 billion to provide access to basic social services and income transfers to the poverty-stricken - less than the net wealth of these seven billionaires. In fact, the top ten billionaires have 1.5 times as much money as the combined national incomes of the 48 poorest countries, home to 10 % of the world's people.

"It is an ethical scandal,' said Dr Richard Jolly, the chief author of the report, 'that we do not provide the basics of education and health for everyone in a world with a $25 trillion economy.'

The report says that 1.3 billion people now live on a dollar a day or less. Even in the West, 100 million people live below the poverty line. Globally, one in five people do not expect to live beyond the age of 40.

Worse, the report points out that the battle against poverty is slowing down. The gap between the poorest fifth of the world's people and the richest fifth has increased from 30:1 in 1906 to 78:1 in 1994.

In the past year alone, there has been a measurable increase in the poverty gap. For the first time since 1990, 30 countries have shown a decline in the Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI attempts to measure poverty both qualitatively and quantitatively through such measures as life expectancy, literacy, safe water, food intake, and access to health services.

The report says that these setbacks are all the more stark against a background of success in some countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Chile, China and Morocco. Clearly, poverty is far from intractable.

Dr Jolly, a former deputy director of Unicef, points out that child mortality has been reduced by half overall in developing countries. 'Extreme poverty could be banished from the globe within one or two decades,' he said, calling for a new Marshall Plan for the poor. 'Without that sort of big thinking we are still going to be struggling with the problem of Africa in the middle of the next century.'

What are the causes of this widening poverty gap? According to the report, the North has been applying free market policies selectively - pushing through reforms that help its own exporters and financiers while blocking the changes in agriculture and textiles that would benefit the poor. The share of world trade for the 48 least developed countries has tus halved to a mere 0.3% in the last 20 years.

Could the world's bankers - indeed, the World Bank - help? Debt relief would allow poor countries to keep their meagre incomes, and not send it on to the rich.

The Human Development Report says that effective debt relief for the poorest 20 countries could cost as little as $5.5 billion. That's the cost of building Disneyland Paris - or around a fifth of the World Bank's annual budget of $25 billion for lending or investing in developing countries.

Now you tell me: Do 7 people really produce a quarter of the world's wealth?

[Andrew]

Yes. Because of Large companies that keep combining to make super companies. :P

I remember seeing on CNN something about this. It had something to do with the top 1 percent of US making 50% of income.

Can't find a link at CNN so here is something similiar.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/BOOK1Ch2.html

[Inoculator9]

Exactly, and it's an horrendous situation. I believe that it is morally revolting that these people can sleep knowing what they could do, and still come out able to live like any king of your choice.

[Egeides]

But remember that a great part of their money is invested. Thus, using the money would take the jobs.

[Inoculator9]

Bill Gate's personal banked wealth totals exceptionaly close to 80 billion dollars. I don't think any of these people would lose to much sleep, or their employees, over contributing a fraction of their funds to what amounts to saving a major percentage of the world's lives. What's worse is the major countries of the world want to spend a comparable sum warring when they could use the same amount to save millions even billions of lives.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Bill Gate's personal banked wealth totals exceptionaly close to 80 billion dollars. I don't think any of these people would lose to much sleep (rightfully at least) over contributing a fraction of their funds to what amounts to saving a major percentage of the world's lives.

all of these men have philantrophic organizations.

[Inoculator9]

Wow, Bill Gates contributes 20 million dollars to cancer research. That's well and good, but if you do the numbers, that's like an average family contributing a little under 50 dollars to their public school or something every year.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Wow, Bill Gates contributes 20 million dollars to cancer research. That's well and good, but if you do the numbers, that's like an average family contributing a little under 50 dollars to their public school or something every year.

20 million is more than enough to perform the necessary cancer reasearch.... i can do a year's worth of

[Inoculator9]

Because giving 20 million dollars is fine, but he can do more! It's only a tiny fraction of what he can afford! I'd bet people annually embezle a comparable sum :D I wont go up to him and say give more, but in his position, my concsious would dictate donating more.

[Mahdi]

Actually, Gates donated over half his assets to charities last year.  As rich as he is, and as little as he needs all his other billions of dollars, you can't really ask a man to do more than that.

[Inoculator9]

Where has this been recorded? I think more note would have been taken of what would amount to a more than 25 billion dollar donation. If this is the case, I'll gladly send him a christmas card.

[Mahdi]

Someone posted the link a few moths ago, detailing the biggest charitable donations of the year and the percentage of there own personal assets it worked out to.  Gates was number one by far having donated over 50% of everything he owns.  If you search the fourm you can find it somewhere.

[TMA_1]

I agree with you guys, but frankly you guys are getting a bit hammy. I mean you guys expect wonders from evil... You say "poverty could be taken away by 6 of the richest people", well if you think it is that simple then you guys need to delve deeper into human nature.lol Honestly I doubt any of you if you were rich would give up all your riches. We all fail and all would do what the young rich lord did to jesus. I think it is naive to say that you would definitely give up all you had, especially since none of you are in the position to do that. It is a tad egotistical in my opinion, as none of you have faced the situation which you so readily judge.

I agree with you guys, that the rich are getting richer, and that is horrible, but the world is an evil place, jesus said that the poor would be with us always, not because people deserve poverty, hell my family has been really poor, but because the world is evila nd people will put others down. it is sad, but true. I think it is too idealistic and arrogant to judge when you havent been in the situation yourself.

[Inoculator9]

Actually I disagree TMA. Call me haughty, but I have very little expectations from life, and if I did by some fluke of fate end up rich I would of course go to some ends to make myself comfortable, but I would be remiss if I were to keep anything beyond what I needed to maintain what I hope will be a home in Chicago and if I feel particularly greedy a small boat :P

I once emptied my pockets for a beggar on the street, and just hearing "god bless" or whatever feels good. Regardless of what we think and how our own lives work, there are people in the same wordly boat, that endure horrible things and I think it's outrageous that people don't even care to consider avenues of changing it in our life times and theirs. Sure TMA, the world is very generally an evil place, but that isn't a reason to ignore the possibility of change or at least advocate it.

And it would be as simple as these seven guys giving out some cash, human nature is what keeps them from doing it at all. Human nature is greedy, and requires money and power for the satisfaction of the ego, which why I'm a Buddhist - because I believe that that is wrong. Human nature is only so great an opponent as long as people cannot keep it in check.

[TMA_1]

well your a friend, and I trust you and know you are a good guy, so I know you would be kind and give almost all you had. :)

but inoc, you have to see that I am somewhat correct, that most people in this life would be hard pressed to give up a fortune if they had it. Especially those "armchair" liberals who talk a good fight but wouldnt ever act on it. I am liberal in a sense of economics, and social issues involved poverty and whatnot. Kennedy said something that I would like to think my mindset is towards.

"I am an idealist without illusions".

I hope that is how I am, not sure though.

[Inoculator9]

I understand TMA, all I'm saying is that I would hope and advocate people in those positions would do more, I'm not saying it's likely to happen anytime soon :P

[TMA_1]

your right, we need to at least try and not give up, totally agree wiht you there.

[danielsh]

Broad generalizations about 'human nature' do nothing to reduce the injustice of this situation, and just because the Bible says something doesn't make it so. The wealthiest men should not control such a significant fraction of the world's wealth, especially not when people---people who, no doubt, have more ethics in their pinkies than these men do in their whole bodies---are starving in the streets. The fact that this gross injustice doesn't bother those most wealthy people goes to show just how corrupt and twisted this capitalist system is.

The philanthropic acts of the wealthy do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the majority. They are meaningless gestures, intended to make people think that their capitalist masters might not be so bad after all. Gates donates to cancer research? Wonderful. Now why isn't he using that money to hire the impoverished, get them on their feet, pay them a fair wage, and try to repair their condition? Andrew Carnegie donated to hundreds of different charities, but that didn't change the fact that his workers were oppressed; that the working conditions in his factories were deplorable; that the wages he paid were grossly unfair; that he was exploiting others' hard work for his own benefit. He built a park? Oh, good, his workers will have somewhere to sleep after he fires them for trying to unionize.

[TMA_1]

I wasent saying that the bible says something is right, I was displaying some info in the bible that seemed relavent... duh.lol

of course it doesnt make it any better to say that anybody would do it, BUT it is important to not be arrogant enough to judge somebody else when you have never been in that position. I know Inoc htough and he is a good guy, I dont know you so I couldnt say if you would or wouldnt give if you were rich. Frankly though I am a pragmatist, and I tend to go towards the negative than the positive, I think you would probably fail.

[Inoculator9]

A lesson from someone that doesn't follow it is still a lesson ;) Not to say Dan wouldn't since I really don't know him, I couldn't say. But I'd be inclined toward the positive.

But the point is, such a large percentage of the world's wealth should not be in the hands of individuals. If Bill Gates felt like it, he could modernize an African country... or two, of his choice, and make it into a model of civil and political rights, along with setting up a booming economy. No one should have that kind of power at their fingertips, because they could do things as evil as my example there is good.

[thomas]

just bitching about gates not donating money to charity, this is charity track record and he was knighted over this aswell.

$1 billion  over 20 years to establish the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, which will support promising minority students through college and some kinds of graduate school.

$750 million  over five years to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which includes the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, Unicef, pharmaceutical companies and the World Bank.

$350 million  over three years to teachers, administrators, school districts and schools to improve America

[thomas]

and that was in 2000

[danielsh]

And all of that is good. (Even if it's only about 1/15 of recent estimates of his net worth, 1/49 of his net worth at his peak.) However, that doesn't mean that he should have such vast resources at his disposal, and be able to direct them to whomever he pleases. Nor does it justify the fact that, as Inoc pointed out, Gates could probably modernize a few countries in Africa.

But the argument is turning too much towards Bill Gates personally. How much did Jeffry Skilling do for humanity? Or Richard M. Scrushy? Granted, I'm picking some of the worst, but the point stands: philanthropic CEOs do not a just economic system make.

[Inoculator9]

Exactly, because I use Bill Gates as an example, we deviate from the point of the thread and my personal points, so that you can simply discredit it. Dan is exactly right, no one man should have that amount of resources ath their disposal, under any guise. Bill Gates is arguably more powerful than the many world leaders, because he has personal jurisdiction over those funds.

[TMA_1]

I have to agree with the statement Dan made before, that even if these rich people are great philantropists, They still do many horrible things, and the money they give is very small in comparison to what they really have. Now some of the rich robber barons did give all they had eventually, but that was over many years, and frankly it doesnt suit somebody to keep the money and give it so discriminately, that is my opinion.

STill I think it is a lot easier to say these things,and that we dont know what we would do if weactually had the money.