World’s 100 Richest Could End Global Poverty Four Times Over

World’s 100 richest could end global poverty 4 times over

“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.

What sense does wealth have in the long run, if we think of ourselves as a species in an enormous cosmos, rather than Americans and Saudi Arabians, or rich and poor?
Crazy talk, for sure. “Us” and “them.” If we don’t recognize ourselves as brothers and sisters, we’re going to be done for. Nature is far more brutal and unstable on the long run than this little calm blip in history would make us think.

There are not yet obvious signs of extraterrestrial intelligence, and this makes us wonder whether civilizations like ours rush inevitably into self-destruction. I dream about it . . . and sometimes they are bad dreams.

The words of Carl Sagan in this episode (a stern Kermit the frog) still ring true, despite the fears of that time being slightly different than now. It doesn’t matter the nature of the eventual disaster, simply that they are inevitable, and yet we seem to live within a system that is designed to keep us estranged, and to deprive the basic necessities of life to some while others are able to .

The underlying dream of Communism is not a bad one, before it is turned to fascism. Is it human nature that makes such a utopean plans impossible? This requires looking at the myth of human nature and the myth of power. 

From Modern Mythology.

James Curcio

I was raped by a family of polar bears as a child and now have a deep seated terror of peanut butter. Psychological transference is weird. Author, artist, freak.

34 Comments on "World’s 100 Richest Could End Global Poverty Four Times Over"

  1. There is a lot of food for thought here, but I think trying to convince rich people to give all their money away is a losing battle. I also think taking it from them through violent revolution is not the answer either.

    I think that would be akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

    I think that is because these wealthy individuals are part and parcel with dynamic systems of wealth accumulation. The net worth of the richest individuals can only be estimated. Its not a static dollar amount. They are constantly moving money around. Their net worth is only relative and this money does not retain its value indefinitely either. So taking all this money and giving it to “the poor” won’t really solve anything long term. The money, is like an artifact that illustrates unequal power relations. Its like a marker. Its nothing in and of itself.

    I think what needs to be looked at is, what comprises wealth, aside from dollar value? I like to look at things, like clean air, water, health, community, education, freedom and aesthetic considerations like attractive architecture, art and music. I think a place to start is through renewing desertified areas through permaculture and constructing a society based on restoring the fertility of the land. Reconnecting with the Earth and the source of life.

  2. If they ended it once, they would probably wind up with a net profit based on a new population of consumers. People living at subsistence level don’t make a lot of discretionary purchases by definition. Of course, this would require them to think in a timeframe beyond the next quarter.

  3. LucidDreamR | Feb 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm |

    Perhaps a form of eugenics that they don’t? Brings a whole new angle…

  4. Lets think about how the cosmos is constructed. The powerful overcome the weak, and then the weak overcome the powerful, when the power of one wanes and the other waxes. But the Good will not play power games. For a perfect representative of the Good, observe Jesus Christ in history. He understood the dynamics of the cosmos. It seems clear to me, He did not justify the system ordained by the cosmocrator, instead He recognized from whence He came and from where He will return, and called us to do the same. It is very similar to what the Taoists taught about the Tao. The Tao is the Way, Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
    The Manichaens also understood that Good does not impose or force. The nature of Force is Evil and the Nature of Evil is Force. The nature of Good is Giving Love and the nature of Giving Love is Good. The known physical world is built on the principles of force. The unknown primal Spiritual world is built on the principle of Love. When one recognizes the nature of the cosmos, it can be daunting and unsettling, but ultimately this knowledge is liberating. For naked I came into the world and naked I will leave it. The wicked powermongers and greedy receive nothing for their wickedness but Everlasting torment. They reap what they sow. So don’t fall for the deception that says you lack. If you knew your Self and your Heavenly Father, the Giver of all Good, you would find rest in the awareness of the Fullness (known as the Pleroma by the ancient Gnostics)

  5. $23802000 | Feb 23, 2013 at 5:48 pm |

    this is bs. poverty requires much more than capital to abolish, you need physical resources like energy, water, metals, minerals and other commodities that we don’t have in enough abundance. the disparity in consumption of physical resources by the rich versus the poor is significant but not even remotely close to the disparity in capital

  6. How long do I have to wait in line?

  7. BuzzCoastin | Feb 23, 2013 at 7:25 pm |

    in the context of civilization
    poverty is a state of mind
    because money has no real value
    and everyone experiences luxury services unimaginable 100 years ago

    most people are entrained to think that money is scarce
    so therefore
    some think they’re poor & some think they’re rich
    based on their ideas about money, wealth and happiness

  8. Coming from the same people that any time you get a rich person doing something with their money you get instantaneous screams of EUGENICS! POPULATIONS CONTROL! THE ELITE AM GONNA KILL US WITH VAXINES!!!!

    • The point is that if they really wanted to benefit the lives of all of earth’s denizens, they have the capital to do that, and they don’t. Whereas if you gave that capital to many of the members on this board, they’d truly do what they could to benefit humanity(at least, I hope most here would).
      So all of that so called philanthropy is clearly bullshit to make us think they’re not evil.
      But they are evil.

  9. InfvoCuernos | Feb 23, 2013 at 9:00 pm |

    “World’s 100 Richest Could End Global Poverty Four Times Over”
    no they couldn’t-that would require some kind of conscience or some other abstract thought or emotion that those sociopaths don’t have the capacity for-except for Bill Gates-he does give away a lot of money.

    • he mostly gives it away for population control.

      • InfvoCuernos | Feb 23, 2013 at 10:17 pm |

        sounds worthy to me.

        • You think there are too many people in Africa? I know its a loaded question.

          • InfvoCuernos | Feb 24, 2013 at 12:52 am |

            I think there are too many people. I think that population control should begin at home, but I’m sure that rich people are more ready to dictate birth control measures in Africa before they would consider cutting into their profit margin too much. I wonder what the continent with the lowest sales for microsoft would be? Maybe Gates is a sociopath.

          • a lot of the rare minerals that go into computers are found only in Africa. its a conspiracy theory, but i think they are trying to get the people out of the way.

          • InfvoCuernos | Feb 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm |

            I’m pretty sure that is 100 % accurate and far from conspiracy- its a historical fact that the main problem that the rest of the world sees with Africa is that there are all these people standing around on top of the riches. Its really sad when you think that Africa is one of the few remaining places where you can still find hunter gatherer tribes living like we did thousands of years ago in harmony with the land, and somehow those same people have been systematically turned to the task of destroying each other and the environment around them for things that they never needed before.

          • Yeah, its kind of fucked. I’d still like to go though, some day. Maybe not to Liberia, but maybe Kenya.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 25, 2013 at 12:54 am |

            you should see what a crowd will do when they catch a thief in Kenya.

            …looks like this.
            with the addition of fire.

          • Anyone who says ‘there are too many people’ should explore the existential implications of that question more deeply. It’s not a question of numbers; it’s a question of the way one choses to live one’s life. The realm of ‘human affairs’ is built on the faulty logic that we can somehow affect the way other people act. This is the greatest fallacy there is. the penal system is built on it; politics (policy formation) is built on it; economics is built on it; all of the social sciences are built on it. The reasons anarchists are against coercion-based human relations is not because it is ‘immoral’ per se, but because it never works. It makes society continually unstable. It brings into being the long cycle of history we’ve become accustomed to believing as objectively real. This is, at its heart, a problem of our own consciousness. The individual either fixes it themselves, or they don’t and the suffering continues. We can’t affect the way others act. We can only affect the way we act. With this ontological perspective, the world external to the Self might as well not even exist. it’s a result of the experience of the Self.

          • I like what you said about the underpinnings of anarchism, but I got a little confused there towards the end. Are you talking about the Buddhist idea of no self? If there is no self why wouldn’t you be able to contol other people?

          • But coercion does work…for those who coerce. And the Cosmos encourages it. We call it “Dog eat Dog” for a reason. The Cosmos IS designed, just not Intelligently, Rationally, or Justly(?)
            I think its ridiculous for anarchists to deny such a thing as morality and immorality. Frankly, coercion is immoral. It is immoral because I would not want you to coerce me, so I should not coerce you. The Golden Rule. The Foundation of Morality. When anarchists recognize their is a value and reason for Morality, maybe people will start to embrace its ideas. The equation Anarchy=Amorality is the deception the rulers love to perpetuate because they know people want Morality. And if Anarchy is Amorality its the rulers, then, who are Anarchists.
            Its OK to be moral, and you can still have yer street cred 🙂

          • InfvoCuernos | Feb 24, 2013 at 4:56 pm |

            I was thinking from a resource standpoint, but I hear what you are saying about how people are living now. There certainly is a much greater chance for individuals to grow, evolve, be “productive”, create art and just generally embrace the gift of life, but for the most part, people are just stumbling through it, marking time and gobbling resources and adding their feces to the mass of shit that goes somewhere. Its a real shame that the only things that seems to mobilize the masses are disaster and war and I really can’t see that changing. The closest we came to aspiring to something bigger than survival was going to the moon, and that only engaged a small fraction of the population and once that was achieved, we just settled back into our collective easy chair to watch Viet-Nam on TV.

  10. We’re all assuming the level of riches actually equate to resources that actually exist…

    • Good point. And money is certainly not a measure of the physical resources that exist; it’s a measure of the faith people have that everyone will continue to do things the same way, which is to say that money is a measure of human slavery.

  11. Howard Brazee | Feb 24, 2013 at 10:12 am |

    The richest people can do a lot of good. But money isn’t food.

  12. The basic problem with the thesis that ‘using capital’ to alleviate ‘poverty’ implies that one can actually exist without the other. This is a false dichotomy. As long as there is capital, there will always be poverty. Money is simply paper to Them…what’s more valuable to Them is our conscious belief that the paper we use to exchange goods is actually worth something; that we continue to believe that if we have more of it, we can solve our problems with it; and, that there will always be enough of it for us if we work hard enough. All of these assumptions are patently false. The monetary system is engineered to enslave us. Money is not an objective thing; it’s the most advanced, modern form of an ancient idea–slavery. It’s seemingly innocuous nature is what makes it so powerful. It has us convinced that we must work for our own slavery. Never forget that for every dollar that we earn, They receive a hundred. They live!

  13. Christopher Linklater | Feb 25, 2013 at 3:30 am |

    If I had the ability to end poverty, but I chose not to, I would feel like the biggest loser in the Universe. I wouldn’t be worthy of breathing.

  14. Simplistic? Yes. Complete b.s.? No. But you’re right that a system would need to be in place far beyond just tossing money around. In fact, I think the point is to call into question the very concept behind money–to ask what good it is doing us as a species.

  15. The wealthy keep taking more money from the poor of the world. What makes anyone think they want to end poverty? They’re the ones making us POOR! Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is one way. Look it up.

Comments are closed.