How are wealth and poverty linked I was listening to a talk on http://unwelcomeguests.org/ and it was about sweat shop labour and the guy giving the talk was trying to get higher wages for people who were being paid something like 6p for making a pair of trousers that were being sold in wallmart for $150 . and the owner of wallmart was opposing the idea of a raise, now the owner of wallmart (which owns asda by the way ) is so rich he could fly first class around the world, live in the best rooms in the waldorf astoria, eat the best food all day every day and buy a new lincoln continental every week for over a thousand years . Is the fact that there are people like this man who have all this wealth the cause of lots of other people being poor . Is the fact that lots of us have more than we need the cause of poverty and starvation
Yes. There is a finite amount of money in the world, and it has to balance out at zero. So as one country or person gets richer, another has to be getting poorer, keeping the surplus/deficit at zero. Easy example, someone gives me £100. I am £100 richer, they are £100 poorer.
The talk on unwelcome guests is ...018 slavery new world order style sweatshops and the prison industrial complex if you ask me on msn I can send it to you or you should be able to hear it on the unwelcome guest site
but perhaps with that £100 you could give it to a charity to help people get out of poverty? this could be quite an interesting topic
But then I would be £100 poorer and they would be £100 richer, so... I see your point though, I think. If you are suggesting that the worlds wealth be distributed more evenly then I totally agree. It is sickening that Shell, BP and others make £15billion + each year. That is pure greed. I don't have charitable donation figures for each company but when was the last time you heared of them donating £100million to the latest earthquake fund or tsunami relief effort? I'd be interested to know how much actual money there is in the world, and how much we would each have if it were divided equally. Some searching required... Thanks for bringing this topic up Jonny, I'll try to listen to the link later, no time now.
I don't know if that is accurate.. but think if i was not getting 6p then i might not be getting anything at all. Wages are not always fair.. but wealth imho does not create poverty.. Infact it probably helps prevent it..
could you elaborate on how weath could prevent poverty? Surely if someone gets more and more money, the people with less will get less on the grand scale of things. And yes i do not think the example given was entiley accurate but it ws making a point peace and love michael x
If a company employs people it creates personal wealth for the individual [ultimatly reducing poverty].. The CEO can get richer and richer..only because his/her company is generating money.. not taking money from those below.. The wealth maybe not shared equally, but that does not make for poverty.. Economies help prevent poverty... the places with no economic growth or failed economies tend to create poverty.. If we all decieded not to buy anything or just what would preserve us.. imho we would create far more poverty
But wealth is not a zero sum game - wealth in the world is increasing the total gross domestic product increases every year. Yes, some people have an obscene amount of money and some changes need to be made. However, when Bill Gates and others started Microsoft they created many jobs and a lot of wealth that was not there before. The supply of money fluctuates from day to day. Just because you have a dollar more does not mean that I have a dollar less. Unearned, inherited wealth should be taxed - I will go for that in a heartbeat but if you level us all out to the same income where is the incentive for anyone to do anything.
But the way in which most CEO gets richer it by reducing their employees, finding cheaper produce, and trying to exterminate competetion, which from past history usually means the poor will struggle to compete, struggle for jobs and when they do find work it will most likely to be very very low pay. I believe that people want to believe that the free maeket and capitalism are good ideas so it eases their guilt to live the oh so good life they lead. Our economy will be pretty close to collapse in the near future in my opinion along with many major economist opinions. I refuse to buy off multinational corporations, and will always purchase fair trade if offered. I do get guilt if I brought an item which is making a huge corp bigger and that most likely the product was made very very cheaply elsewhere. Michael x
Hiya, Just read a very interesting book called Mind the Gap, by richard wilkinson, about how relative social inequality is worse for health than relative poverty, about how heirarchical societies are bad for mental and physical health. very good book, worth a look, x
I don't have a 'oh so good life' i could if i put my mind too it.. it does not have much to do with being held back [apart from by myself]. Ultimately there are huge corps' that provide lots of jobs, from Sony to McDonalds from Nike to Starbucks; with different reputations or speculations [or biases] of there reputation. I buy from multinationals, not all of them .. but some. I won't tar them all with the same brush, because i have researched the different companys and most are disliked by the extreme end of the lobbyist fringe... who spin the 'evil empire' bias for there own gains [don't be fooled they do]. I don't get guilty either, just hope the corporate responsibility clauses within those large company mean something [it is in there best interests, so i believe most do take it seriously] . When you buy off some small company, your only creating a mini 'coporate empire' or making somebody somewhere rich, anyway, with no spot light on them; they could ultimately being doing more harm than you think ?. You could be right about it all collapsing economies, greedy CEOs etc.. Thats why it is vital the trading blocks of the world, iron out 'fair/free trade' unfair tariffs etc etc etc etc .. so that every one gets on somewhat of a equal footing . dti
thanks for the recommendation, will try and find the book and give it a read, i will also give a suggestion of 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, awesome book on our corporate time, also anything by Chomsky Michael x
You may be right on the job front, and maybe i am slightly biased and naive when it comes to trusting anti corp groups, but i do not believe we should wait for this collapse to just happen and instead change our way of thinking and acting now, economies are not the most important thing in life, but it seems here in the west money equals happiness, and we should at least attempt to step away from this. I will not buy from a huge profit making company because of my dislike from companies who put profit first which I agree is most companies. Michael x
Thanks for the website, i will check it out, honest even if the title scares me. I will be the first to admit it if I am wrong about things, I just think the current system in unaccectable, I did used to agree with the free market, before I read up a bit more on the inequalities and how it only works if you live in the "three main triangle" areas. Thanks for the link though Michael x
Imho don't see it as wealth = happyness.. If the UK [for e.g] decieded not to buy or sell from any other country apart from itself.. How long do you think the economy would survive ?.. How long would the country survive ?.. How long would the people survive . Seeing it as a vital though i admit necessary evil-in alot of ways] for the benefit of the people , is how i see it. With out a vibrant economy, we end up with none of the benefits of a society with capital and capital to spend [and give back in taxes-paying for health and social care]. I appreciate this model i give is rosey..and i do take on board the other end of the debate.. but meh just my two pennys worth [worked hard for *wink*].
I could be as naive as yourself .. [no offence, your words]. The link is good, the title maybe a little scarey.. but it is not as scarey as you may think.. Its the tip of the iceberg. The more capitalist a culture - the greater its freedom and prosperity That is the verdict of history. In just two short centuries, capitalism has lifted men’s living standards to heights undreamed of in the pre-capitalist era. Often forgotten today is that Western Europe, prior to the capitalist revolution of the late Eighteenth Century, suffering under the political yoke of the feudal aristocracy, was the equivalent of a Third World country - wracked by famine, recurrent plague, and the most unspeakable poverty. But no longer. When was the last time a famine occurred in any capitalist nation - whether in Western Europe, North America or Asia? The United States has never suffered a famine in its history. Capitalism has created abundance unmatched in human history, enabling hundreds of millions to live better today than all the kings of yesterday. Less capitalism means more human misery But the non capitalist nations - the fascist, socialist, military or theocratic dictatorships - enslave their own citizens and subsist in abysmal squalor. In many African countries the living standard is one or two hundred dollars per year. In North Korea, they starve to death by the tens of thousands. In Cuba, they drown trying to swim to freedom in the United States. Millions of oppressed people around the globe yearn to emigrate to the Free World. But who in the capitalist nations seeks to emigrate to Cambodia? http://www.celebratecapitalism.org/bernsteindeclaration/english/index.html
First off, if you give someone 100L it doesn't mean he is 100L richer and you are 100L poorer. Unless you transfer the money for no other reason. Usually, in this world, when I give you 100L it's because you've just finished a repair on something of mine or some goods, which improves my lot, and with that 100L you feed your family, which gives that to the farmer, who buys software, the money comes back to me. When the market runs and runs well things go fine. Typical Euro. He is rich and I am poor - it must be because he has my money - not because the man invested and took risks and I did my GSCE in aromatherapy and slobbed around on dope.
