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

[nemafakei]

An example of an economic idea similar to (but not exactly like) communism is as follows, written some time ago, and begins with the political model:

The basic principle of this government and syatem is that we co-ordinate better, as a world (if possible). That is to say, rather than working against each other in the antagonism that prevails today, causing things like poverty and its humanitarian effects, (and so catastrophes like those on 11/09/01), we would create a way by which we could work together. This will entail refocusing greed, one of the banes of modern civilisation into something constructive. That is, I would have it that the concept of making profit impossible. For profit means that someone or everyone else loses; a system by which everyone makes profit is a contradiction, since money is an expression of buying power of a percentage of the world's resources; the more money in the system, the less the money is worth. A system by which only a few make profit means that others become poor - this is unfair and immoral. We must refocus greed for the self to seek prosperity for the community that is our world.

To co-ordinate well, we must find a system that does not merely agree on a few rules of thumb and let things be - aside from being lazy, this will fail to protect people. Moreover, a government can never be based on the representation of self-interest. One village should not simply damn a river that another village relies on for a water supply. All plans must be drawn up with the intrests of all parties concerned in mind. For any dispute, negotiations are quicker and easier if the only negotiators are ones who are not involved parties. Moreover, better decisions will be created, since it is not in the interest of the negotiators to make a bad decision, the like of which happen today - especially when parties that would be harmend do not even get a lookin as to the decision.

It is not that individuals are all too stupid to decide for themselves what to do, it is that they may often be biased in their approach to a decision involving them, so arbitration must start.

To clarify a misconception.... The idea is not that people serve some hazy body called "The Government" (which would be made up by the populace themselves anyway). The people serve each other, being part of a community. No-one has the "right" to do something that is harmful to others. And inaction can be an active decision in of itself, and one which can indirectly hatm others. The government is merely an influence by which we protect each other from coming to harm, not some end in itself. However, we must make sure that it functions well, and to do this, we must help the governmental system to help each other.

However, it is not required to sacrifice everything for others - we are just as much on the receiveng end of benefit.

Let me also dissuade you from the overused notion that everyone has certain rights which are somehow paramount. The idea in the form we know today was conceived in times when people were very worried about systems which would create wars and otherwise lead to general hardship. "Rights" is one tool that was used to stop prevent oppression. However, in systems designed specifically for the purpose of the benefit for all, whereby "rights" are not needed as a check-and-balance to stop misuse of power, we can safely dispose of the notion that is pleaded as a purpose in of itself.

That is not to say that we should not be free, that we should not be allowed to speak our thoughts, that we should not be given choice as to what we do, who we talk to. Indeed, to stop people doing these things would be counterproductive. But to enshrine these ideas as something we must protect at the expense of others is not sensible. Of course, no-one can go around imprisoning, gagging, or restricting people. But before providing for luxuries, we must make sure that we put our effort into getting everyone fed, educated, and in a position from which they can maximise their potential and be useful to society.

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts". The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, modern democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt. Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

However, note that in both cases that it is not the power or weakness itself which has this effect - it is someone's belief in the magnitude of their power that corrupts, and someone's lack of faith in their own ability to change something that makes them stop trying. Note especially that the illusion of power is relative - individual voters feel weaker if there is an omnipotent president, but stronger if there are larger groups who are unable to vote.

Therefore, when constructing a system of government, it must be considered that no-one should believe they have sufficient power to manipulate it to their own wont. Equally, no-one in the system should  feel that they are so weak that the decisions they are asked to make are not needed or useful. To do this, we must make each decision universal, but no decision can be so great that it might be manipulated by greed, so that the balanced belief is supported by truth. This seems impossible. I believe it is not.

At this point, I will remind you of another political idea that is relevant. The idea of checks and balances to stop corruption by limitation of power is essential. It can be through scrutiny panels like corruption courts, or the electorate. Or, it can be through division of power - separate executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government are common to many European democracies. Of these options, both will stop any manipulation of decisions for the purpose of greed, but only the second allows (some) decisions to be universal - in that decisions made by the Judiciary usually cannot be revoked or affected by decisions by the legislative. However, in most countries with such a system, we still have conflicts between different stages of the system - local legislative groups might pass a bye-law, but a national parliament might declare that the bye-law will be damaging to the country as a whole, thus over-ruling it. Therefore, the solution again seems to be to divide up the roles of of each body further, so that any one decision can only be made by one governing body - no single body can make decisions which are superior to those of another body. There are two reasons for this - first, the idea that one council is any better at making decisions than another is absurd. Secondly, as previously stated, the illusion of power is relative; if two councils composed in the same way were to make decisions on the same problem, making one council's decision constitutionally superior to that of the other will cause the 'better' council members to feel more powerful - and they would be more prone to corruption, whereas the 'worse' councillors would be more prone to disinterest.

So decisions should only be made once - this considerably reduces red tape, but appears to leave no route for appeal. This is not true, however. If the situation (or evidence) has changed considerably since the initial decision was made, then that decision will not be made again if an appeal is mounted - the decision could well be a different one, since it will be made concerning different circumstances, even if the topic and question are the same.

Next, it must be found how to best do this. It is obvious that no decision can be made by one person alone. But equally, it is difficult to keep an overlarge group informed well enough that they can contribute to the decision and the discussion of the decision. These are considerationsthat must be taken, but it is not my place, nor is it within my ability to assert or otherwise prescribe a set size for each body. However, it is known that there must be a great number of these bodies, each to deal with a different set of issues. Each council will have an equal amount of power, because each decision will be irrefutible by other councils. Some councils will be permenant (the members, of course, will not), but some will be temporary (councils to run enquiries into reasons for problems, crises, and disasters). Some will deal with research and analysis to provide information for other councils, others will make executive decisions. Some will deal with the administration (creation of, removal of, assignment of personnel to, liasons between) other councils.

So, once we have developed such a format for a council, we need to know about its members - specifically, how they are chosen. Since, in a vast network of councils, it is impossible to elect every single one democratically (plus, see above the problems of democracy, eg the tendency to elect figures for their popularity, not their ability), they must be elected in some other fashion. Moreover, this method cannot be relative to any form of political weightings, because that would be subject to opinion, as well as corruption. The only fair method is to select people randomly from the population to contribute, in the same way as National Service works in some European countries. Note that proficiency tests in such decision making would be required - perhaps in the form of written examinations, coupled with oral work and interviews. Those passing a minimum standard in capability and willingness will be put on a database, from which possible candidates for each council will be randomly selected, based on their preferences and interest in particular topics (so that people are not chosen to work on topics that bore them. Equally, someone who feels passionately about a particular topic is unsuitable to work as an unbiased opinion in a council). Testing methods for these attributes will have to be refined. It'll be difficult at first, but will become easier in the long run.

All finances are government-controlled. Your wages will be calculated on how well you serve the community compared to your potential. Therefore, a brilliant accountant will be paid more for doing accounting than otherwise. If you are serving the community at your full potential (ie no laziness, doing whatever will help the community most), then you will receive the maximum payment, based on how much is being produced by the country. NB, if there is a lack of teachers, an accountant might be paid more to be a Maths teacher. Council work will be paid at a good level as well.

Hence, shopkeepers will not profit from what they take in; goods will be bought by plastic card, shopkeepers will be paid by the government. Corruption is impossible, because there is no means by which it can occur, if all money is issued by the government.

[Edric O]

Well, Nema, your system is actually very different from communism... I suppose there are some common points, of course, but not very many. It has more in common with socialism (the existence of a state, the use of money in the context of a planned economy, etc.), although, again, there are more differences than similarities. And, of course, the fact that your system technically isn't democratic creates a great divide between it and socialism/communism.

Good call on that last one, Edric, :) To be honest, while I still like the spirit of equality that comes with communism, I am still unsure of how it works in economic (and, in some cases, moral terms). Perhaps this is because I am learning economics in a capitalist system? I would appreciate any basic rundown of how communism is a beneficial system in economic terms.

Well, I'd be glad to help, but that's a very general question you asked there, Wolfwiz... far too general. Tens of books have been written about the economics of communism, totalling a good many thousands of pages. I wouldn't even know where to begin, and I'd have to write a huge essay in any case. Perhaps you can be a little more specific?

Alternatively, you could look through the archive of "classical" marxist writings or read what marxists are writing today. The only problem is that you might have some trouble finding exactly what you're looking for among their documents and articles.

Edit: I think I should also give you a disclaimer if you're going to visit the second site I've recommended. The opinions of marxists on the war in Iraq (and the situation in the Middle East in general) are almost as many as there are marxists, so don't be surprised if they don't agree.

[Wolf]

Understood... to clarify my question, how would an industrial factory work in a communist system? A situation in which each worker contributes only one part to the final good. How is that handled? How are the men payed proportionally to their labor? Furthermore, how would a factory-setting be handled by the society?

[nemafakei]

"Well, Nema, your system is actually very different from communism..."

Well, Edric, you've spent some time trying to convince me the reverse...!

[Edric O]

Well, Nema, that was a very long time ago, and if I remember correctly, I was trying to convince you that there are many similarities between your system and socialism (which is perfectly true, as I've said in my previous post here), and I pointed out that you seem to share many of the communist ideals (which is, again, perfectly true; your system has almost the same aims and goals as communism, although it tries to achieve them in a different way).

Wolfwiz, thank you for clarifying your questions, and rest assured that I will give you a full answer to each of them... but right now I don't have the time to write more than these few lines. :- This week is turning into a very busy one for me, and in fact this is probably my last post until the weekend. (see my signature) So we'll continue this discussion on saturday or sunday, I guess...

[alchemi2]

Actually, the number of wars between 3rd world countries in the past 50 years can be counted on the fingers of two hands. Most wars you hear about are civil wars, usually fought with rudimentary weapons. Civil wars are pretty cheap. With a few exceptions (like North Korea), 3rd world countries don't really spend too much on their military. Many of them never went through any wars (civil or otherwise) at all.

Which African countries have had stable goverments or conditions for the last 20 years?

Their wars may not be on grand scales but they are disruptive and even bullets for shot guns cost money that they don't have.

The wars between different tribes/factions destroy the farms and homes.

Rhodesia was the bread basket of africa now it needs food aid!!!

And your saying that these wars/ disruptions are not the problem. It's a lack of cash. (Typical ideological bullcrap)

It's been shown time and time again that money is diverted either into the hands of the corrupt to line their own pockets or syphoned off to fund arms for their supporters, all the wealth in the world won't solve poverty/hunger in these countries. Only by educating them away from violence and ignorance can you begin to change things.

Haven't you noticed that schools are always one of the first targets of these groups followed by hospitals. >:(

[emprworm]

the worlds 7 richest men hate Bush.  Isn't that fascinating?

[EWS]

the worlds 7 richest men hate Bush.  Isn't that fascinating?

No not really.  What does it matter that the 7 most richest men in the world hate bush, really just the same connection as if they hated Tuna.

[Wolf]

Actually, I think it says more about Bush than it does about the Seven Richest Men. Think about it, don't Republicans have a reputation for appealing to the wealthy? Man, if they can't keep even them happy...

[Dude_Doc]

I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I'll write it again.

There is this book, "The Silent Takeover", by Noreena Hertz (sp?), in which she describes how corporations do both good and bad.

For example, the good thing is that the corporations can work world wide. There are no national borders. If the corporation wants to help starving people, they can do it everywhere, not just in the US or in the Republic of Congo etc.

Another thing is that corporations can act quickly. Usually, it does take some time for national governments to approve, discuss etc, while corporations can do it swiftly (maybe because they have only one, or a very small group of, company executive?).

The bad things, though, is that corporations don't have democratic systems we all are used to. The leader says this, the workers do their bidding, end of line. And if you disagree, and make it loud, you'll get fired.

Also, corporations can do basically whatever they want. There are no set of rules or regulations (except killing people, criminal activities, smuggling etc).

The thing is that more and more people don't trust governments because they are corrupt, and because it takes time for them to finish anything. They should keep in mind, though, that if the scenario when world governments collapse and the market and the corporate powers are the only thing left, people will expect these companies to live up to the expectations.

I really recommend you to read this book.

[Edric O]

the worlds 7 richest men hate Bush.  Isn't that fascinating?

Do you even know who the 7 richest men in the world ARE?

They include not only Bill Gates (who is pro-Bush, I believe), but also the crown prince of Saudi Arabia (who is practically in love with Bush), as well as several other Oil Lords - all of whom are stauncly conservative and pro-Bush.

[Edric O]

Which African countries have had stable goverments or conditions for the last 20 years?

That depends on how you define "stable conditions". I'd be hard pressed to find you any African countries which haven't had ANY sort of violence AT ALL in the past 20 years. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there hasn't been any war (neither a civil war nor any other kind) in the past 20 years. Not even a small war.

Rhodesia was the bread basket of africa now it needs food aid!!!

Errr, it's called Zimbabwe now. And it's a unique case: There's a rather insane fascist dictator in charge.

And your saying that these wars/ disruptions are not the problem. It's a lack of cash. (Typical ideological bullcrap)

No, I'm not saying they're not the problem. I'm saying they are only PART of the problem. Obviously wars and disruptions cause damage, the obviously inhibit development, hurt the economy and contribute to poverty. But to say that they are the ONLY cause of 3rd world poverty is beyond ridiculous. The main cause of an economic problem (poverty) is, surprisingly enough, an economic cause. To be more exact, it's the Global Economy. 3rd world countries are deep in debt, and a lot of very rich and powerful corporate leaders want to keep them poor in order to have a source of cheap labour, cheap resources, etc.

Throwing cash at them might help, though, as long as you throw enough cash to really make a difference. And as long as you use that cash to "teach the man to fish" rather than "buying him a fish".

Now about Cyborg's comments on corporations:

For example, the good thing is that the corporations can work world wide. There are no national borders. If the corporation wants to help starving people, they can do it everywhere, not just in the US or in the Republic of Congo etc.

True. But why would a corporation want to help starving people? Corporations are driven by the profit motive. They will only help starving people (or do anything else, for that matter) if they can make a profit from it.

Rather than having international corporations, I say it's much better to have international charity organizations.

Another thing is that corporations can act quickly. Usually, it does take some time for national governments to approve, discuss etc, while corporations can do it swiftly (maybe because they have only one, or a very small group of, company executive?).

Well, yes, dictatorships usually act quickly... and they take the decisions that benefit their ruling clique rather than the people at large. In the case of corporations, this means taking decisions that benefit their shareholders, no matter how many people suffer as a result.

The bad things, though, is that corporations don't have democratic systems we all are used to. The leader says this, the workers do their bidding, end of line. And if you disagree, and make it loud, you'll get fired.

Also, corporations can do basically whatever they want. There are no set of rules or regulations (except killing people, criminal activities, smuggling etc).

Very true.

The thing is that more and more people don't trust governments because they are corrupt, and because it takes time for them to finish anything. They should keep in mind, though, that if the scenario when world governments collapse and the market and the corporate powers are the only thing left, people will expect these companies to live up to the expectations.

But corporations are not democracies; the people have no power over them. And if they own and control everything, you won't even be able to live unless you buy the things they sell you... In any case, you have no reason to expect them to fulfill your expectations. After all, they have no reason to do that.

[Edric O]

And now to reply to Wolfwiz's old question:

Understood... to clarify my question, how would an industrial factory work in a communist system? A situation in which each worker contributes only one part to the final good. How is that handled? How are the men payed proportionally to their labor? Furthermore, how would a factory-setting be handled by the society?

I believe you are confusing communism with socialism. The goal of socialism is to pay the workers proportionally to their labor. The goal of communism is "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs". Therefore, there is no such thing as "pay" in a communist system. The people produce things, they place them in a "common stash", and then each person uses them according to his/her need. Naturally, there would also have to be some rules in place to prevent abuse, and the items that are in limited supply will be distributed according to some principles that will have to be worked out by the community at that time (realistically, we can't work out everything in advance; we can draw the basic layout of a future system, but the details will have to be worked out by the people who actually wish to live in that system - that's why I use general terms such as "rules" and "principles").

Therefore, your question applies to socialism rather than communism. And the answer is simple: If several people contribute in the production of an object, but their contributions are so intimately connected that you can't separate one man's work from his colleagues' work, then the obvious solution is to give all the men equal pay. After all, each of them played a vital role in the production of that object.

And as for your second question, what do you mean by "how would a factory-setting be handled by the society"? Why would a factory setting be treated any different from any other working environment?

[Wolf]

Okay, so, a communist system would be perfected over years of practice? Meaning, we would learn what rules need to be made and how to enforce them, how to organize the common stash, etc.

Secondly, I am wondering, how would a communist system go about the process... say... to make a 747 jumbo jet? Would this be possible? How would it organize? I understand that we cannot come up with the exact plans and specifications, but, in general?

If these questions are too vague, please ask me to clarify.

[mazza_sa]

While you are all asleep let me take this moment to say what I fear will be ripped to bits by all highly educated critics...makes for chicken soup for the soul neh?

I love my country to bits...yeah go South Africa and hopefully we will win the World cup soccer bid for 2010. Heres to another 10 years of successful democracy...

This forum has entertained me for a good part of the morning.

First issue: The discussion is a combination of economics and humanism. Great combination for a discussion. Todays structure of economics simply cannot be explained and justified as it is just too broad for anyone to get their teeth around. Nowadays the distinguising factor of what is right and what is wrong has a very fine line, I'm not talking morally and ethically, I'm talking about opinionated discussions such as all the above. Everyone is a critic and that makes life interesting. With the rich come the poor. You all are contributing in some slight way to the rich man poor man syndrome, you all have cars, houses, food etc. which is directly or indirectly affecting the rich man somewhere along the line. In order to judge another is very easy, but unfair if you are living in the system as he. In order to judge effectively without bias you would have to grow up and live in a system that is not connected to the one you choose to judge or form an opinion about. If I were to grow up on an island, living subsistantly and happily without any contribution to the system than I would be more than righteous in my judgement of another.

Money is the root of all evil and cannot solve anything at the end of the day. Throwing money at a problem will simply quell the fire under the pot for only if anything a moment(in terms of eradicating poverty). Educate the poor is the first step. I fear to say this...but you can never solve this problem as religion is one of the direct causes of most of our worldy problems...This will never be solved. If you could break that then we can all discuss ways on solving impoverished countries that will be realistic.

Does Bill Gates actually deserve all his riches, why not?...you have more than likely bought something that is linked to his source of wealth.( At the end of the day he has donated more than all of us combined could ever attempt to manage)

He could do more...at least he has done!

We simply cannot understand why he doesn't do more...it is impossible, I now for me at least to try and comprehend being worth billion of dollars let alone our currency of rands. Public icons generally do crazy things due to 2 things - The money, and the society you interact with.

[Wolf]

A critic of critics is still a critic.

[mazza_sa]

Words of wisdom Wolfwiz that applies to one who has criticised ;)

[Wolf]

Well, I didn't deny that I did. Furthermore, my above statement was not really a direct criticism, rather, a seemigly-factual assertion.