Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half' Watch

    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The point is that it's a story trotted out on a regular basis, in this case just before every world economic forum.

    I wouldn'tbe surprised if the reports are near word for word identical year in year out.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Its not every two weeks. have you ever bothered to look what the objectives of Oxfam is? It could be seomthing to do with tackling poverty?

    Do you only ever talk about a subject once? Does poverty still exist in the world?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Who said the left is the politics of envy?
    Envy? Do you not think poverty is an issue?
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Envy? Do you not think poverty is an issue?
    If poverty is really the issue (not envy) why attack these billionaires?

    This thread is based on a report made by Oxfam laying into eight men. These individuals have made at least $60 billion worth of charitable donations:

    1. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft: More than $27 billion dollars in charitable donations, some 48% of his net worth, saving some 6 million lives fighting malaria and polio.
    2. Amancio Ortega, founder of Inditex: More than $95 million in charitable donations.
    3. Warren Buffett, CEO, Berkshire Hathaway: More than $21.5 billion in charitable donations.
    4. Carlos Slim Helu, owner of Grupo Carso: More than $4 billion dollars in charitable donations.
    5. Jeff Bezos, founder, Amazon: More than $25 million dollars in charitable donations, invests hundreds of millions in not-for-profit ventures.
    6. Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook: More than $1.6 billion in charitable donations.
    7. Larry Ellison, co-founder, Oracle: More than $564 million dollars in charitable donations.
    8. Michael Bloomberg, founder, Bloomberg LP: More than $4.22 billion dollars in charitable donations.


    Oxfam spends £300 million a year on charitable causes, so it would take them more than 150 years to spend as much on charity as the rich guys they condemn today.

    Like I say it is all about envy of people richer than you (how unfair!).

    Because these much vilified people do a hell of a lot more good in the world than Oxfam.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    If poverty is really the issue (not envy) why attack these billionaires?

    This thread is based on a report made by Oxfam laying into eight men. These individuals have made at least $60 billion worth of charitable donations:

    1. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft: More than $27 billion dollars in charitable donations, some 48% of his net worth, saving some 6 million lives fighting malaria and polio.
    2. Amancio Ortega, founder of Inditex: More than $95 million in charitable donations.
    3. Warren Buffett, CEO, Berkshire Hathaway: More than $21.5 billion in charitable donations.
    4. Carlos Slim Helu, owner of Grupo Carso: More than $4 billion dollars in charitable donations.
    5. Jeff Bezos, founder, Amazon: More than $25 million dollars in charitable donations, invests hundreds of millions in not-for-profit ventures.
    6. Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook: More than $1.6 billion in charitable donations.
    7. Larry Ellison, co-founder, Oracle: More than $564 million dollars in charitable donations.
    8. Michael Bloomberg, founder, Bloomberg LP: More than $4.22 billion dollars in charitable donations.


    Oxfam spends £300 million a year on charitable causes, so it would take them more than 150 years to spend as much on charity as the rich guys they condemn today.

    Like I say it is all about envy of people richer than you (how unfair!).

    Because these much vilified people do a hell of a lot more good in the world than Oxfam.
    It was highlighting wealth inequality 8 v 3.6billion. Poverty if you hadnt noticed has a very real impact on peoples lives. The 8 could have been anyone, but it was highlighting how out of balance it is on world terms, the consequences of which it has to deal with on a global basis.

    Do you think poverty is an issue?

    The article doesnt vilify them, its more about the issue of wealth distribution and world economics.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    When the CEO makes in a day what his workers make in a year, I would argue that the gap is too wide.
    Why is that arbitrarily the problem point though? If a CEO puts in 15 hour days to build a company that provides a service for people it's fair that they earn more. You can't judge how much more is (or how much of a gap) is fair because it varies per person. Not to mention 95% of the people reading the article and having an opinion will be the poor people (in comparison). All the comments come exclusively from the workers mentality. It's possible some CEOs would read it but I'd wager they have a better grasp on their time and priorities so won't bother replying.

    And that's what it boils down to. "Workers" or "poor people" who want to sit around and blame rich people for poverty vs CEOs or "rich people" who actually go out and do something about poverty. Both their own and the poverty of other people.

    It's quite interesting to see the difference in comments on here compared to Facebook. Facebook comments have people happily condemning the rich, implying that someone else earning money makes people poor. If I earn £100,000 more than someone else that is not making other people £100,000 worse off.

    Oxfam claims to be a charity but it functions as a business. They employ people, invest and generally do all they can to make as much money as possible. Oxfam at the most basic level operates in the same way as Microsoft for example. They provide a service to people in exchange for money, which is reinvested into the company. Lets face it, how often do you go into a charity shop because you want to donate money? How often do you go in because you need something cheap? Oxfam and other charity shops provide things cheaply to people that can't afford or don't want to pay more. If you were really invested in charity you'd go in, donate some money and not buy something.

    Some of that money then goes on donations, after you've done things like pay workers, pay rent for shops and so on. Yet compare the amount of donations from Oxfam to Bill Gates. Gates alone does magnitudes more. This is nothing more than yet another smear attempt on the rich. Media in general look to make the rich people the villains. Far too many people fall for it. There's a reason books on business tend to teach that money isn't evil. Too many people are brainwashed into believing it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There will always poor people and rich people or middle class you pick the side and go to the side.If you are angry or jealous of the rich or think they are greedy you are not going to be rich.Anger and jealousy got no one anywhere
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    It was highlighting wealth inequality 8 v 3.6billion. Poverty if you hadnt noticed has a very real impact on peoples lives. The 8 could have been anyone, but it was highlighting how out of balance it is on world terms, the consequences of which it has to deal with on a global basis.
    The balance is irrelevant though. 3.6 million people aren't poor/in poverty because 8 people have all the money. Compare someone living in your average first world country to a third world country. There's going to be a huge difference but the fact I have thousands in savings and someone in a third world country lives on pennies a day are unrelated. Highlighting how out of balance it is doesn't achieve anything. Acting on it doesn't achieve anything. If I earn less, someone in a third world country does not magically earn more. There's no link between what I earn and poverty somewhere else in the world.

    The issues that should be highlighted are the reasons that so many people are in poverty. Highlighting that 8 people are as rich as 3.6 billion doesn't mean a damn thing. However since so many people are brought up to think money is evil, or rich people are bad or whatever they villify the rich, making a link between them and poverty.

    You don't even have to compare rich people and poverty. There are people worth millions who are far rich than me. I'm living in a 700 person student flat so it's likely you could find one rich person who is richer than all of us combined. The scale is a little different but it really doesn't matter. They are richer and we are poorer because of our choices. Yeah, some of the 3.6 billion are in devloping countires where they may not have much of a choice. But the gap between these and your average first world citizen is still huge. Does it matter? Not in the slightest because what they do and what we do are unrelated.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pretty sure we could find 8 rich people who have donated more to charity than 3.6 billion people.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Acsel)
    The balance is irrelevant though. 3.6 million people aren't poor/in poverty because 8 people have all the money. Compare someone living in your average first world country to a third world country. There's going to be a huge difference but the fact I have thousands in savings and someone in a third world country lives on pennies a day are unrelated. Highlighting how out of balance it is doesn't achieve anything. Acting on it doesn't achieve anything. If I earn less, someone in a third world country does not magically earn more. There's no link between what I earn and poverty somewhere else in the world.

    The issues that should be highlighted are the reasons that so many people are in poverty. Highlighting that 8 people are as rich as 3.6 billion doesn't mean a damn thing. However since so many people are brought up to think money is evil, or rich people are bad or whatever they villify the rich, making a link between them and poverty.

    You don't even have to compare rich people and poverty. There are people worth millions who are far rich than me. I'm living in a 700 person student flat so it's likely you could find one rich person who is richer than all of us combined. The scale is a little different but it really doesn't matter. They are richer and we are poorer because of our choices. Yeah, some of the 3.6 billion are in devloping countires where they may not have much of a choice. But the gap between these and your average first world citizen is still huge. Does it matter? Not in the slightest because what they do and what we do are unrelated.
    You obviously didnt read the artcile or understand the emphasis. If you had you wouldnt have written what you had.
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    It was highlighting wealth inequality 8 v 3.6billion. Poverty if you hadnt noticed has a very real impact on peoples lives. The 8 could have been anyone, but it was highlighting how out of balance it is on world terms, the consequences of which it has to deal with on a global basis.

    Do you think poverty is an issue?

    The article doesnt vilify them, its more about the issue of wealth distribution and world economics.
    The article clearly does vilify them personally.

    There is a real problem with the charitable sector nowadays and this sort of meaningless posturing neatly exemplifies it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...le-work-public

    Stop the political campaigning (is this sort of stuff what your charitable donations are going on?) and get on with actually doing some good.

    Like the rich people do, whom you shamefully seek to arouse anger, hatred and envy towards. To the tune of sixty billion dollars.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    The article clearly does vilify them personally.

    There is a real problem with the charitable sector nowadays and this sort of meaningless posturing neatly exemplifies it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...le-work-public

    Stop the political campaigning (is this sort of stuff what your charitable donations are going on?) and get on with actually doing some good.

    Like the rich people do, whom you shamefully seek to arouse anger, hatred and envy towards. To the tune of sixty billion dollars.
    Not the report that I read.It was pointing out the inequality and poverty brought about by world economics. They just happen to be some of the winners, whereas Oxfam works to deal with thos trapped in poverty.


    Lol you are projecting when you accuse me of shamefully villifying and aimed at arousing hatred and anger.

    I havent shamed and I havent villified. That would make you a liar.

    I merely commented on what was in the press release.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    A new report released by Oxfam has shown that the 8 richest individuals in the world have as much wealth as the 3.6bn people who make up the poorest half of the world, according to Oxfam.

    Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Amancia Ortega are 3 of the billionaires that make up the list.

    There have subsequently been calls for a "fair share of tax" to try and reduce the gap. You can read more on the story here.

    Gates and Zuckerberg have been rather philanthropic with their money, but do you think more could be done? Or do you think they've worked are for their money and the gap is out of their control?

    What would you do to close the gap?
    This huge escalation of wealth amongst a very few is a direct and inevitable consequence of neoliberal tax policies that have allowed the very rich and the multinational corporations to pay less tax and to evade and avoid tax more easily. The sympathy all of our corrupt governments show to the very rich and their tax havens is not something any of us ordinary citizens want, but they get away with it anyway, because the political leaders fly to places like Davos and take their lead from the billionaire class and because they believe they can safely ignore the protests. They also have a tame media to support them, which itself is largely owned by offshored plutocrats like Rupert Murdoch, who share the same goals.

    A strange, distorted, corrupt nexus has arisen between gangster billionaires in places like Russia and the ruling classes of Europe and America, to such an extent that the new President of the United States is in their pockets and is himself a minor oligarch.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If they have worked hard for it and obtained their money legally i don't see a problem with this whatsoever.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Envy? Do you not think poverty is an issue?
    I think he just believes that poverty can't be tackled through taxation.

    Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.

    Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.

    Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.

    If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    You obviously didnt read the artcile or understand the emphasis. If you had you wouldnt have written what you had.
    I read the article, although it was at 6am this morning. For clarification I don't have any real concerns about what the BBC wrote. That said many people will read the headline and jump to conclusions. The article itself doesn't offer much in the way of concrete information, nor does it try to take a side. The issue is that most people see "Eight Billionaires as rich as the world's poorest half" and immediatley jump to the entirely wrong conclusion. Like I said in my previous post, the Facebook comments on this were incredibly derogatory towards the rich and were getting enough likes to sit at the top. People see money and jump to conclusions. This article encourages that because it's building on the established that rich people are bad, money is evil and so on.

    My entire point though is that highlighting it doesn't do a damn thing. Oxfam is wasting time and money finding out that 8 people have money equal to 3.6 billion people. It doesn't actually change the fact, nor does it help the 3.6 billion in poverty. If anything all it does is discourage public opinion of the rich, get people to talk about it and maybe allow Oxfam to make a few sales from people that feel bad. What the article says is irrelevant, the very fact anyone (on Facebook or TSR) has an issue with the the numbers or thinks they are somehow related is the problem.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NI30241834)
    If they have worked hard for it and obtained their money legally i don't see a problem with this whatsoever.
    They pay a very different tax rate to you and me. We have to pay taxes. For them, it's entirely voluntary.

    Do you regard that as moral?
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Not the report that I read.It was pointing out the inequality and poverty brought about by world economics. They just happen to be some of the winners, whereas Oxfam works to deal with thos trapped in poverty.


    Lol you are projecting when you accuse me of shamefully villifying and aimed at arousing hatred and anger.

    I havent shamed and I havent villified. That would make you a liar.

    I merely commented on what was in the press release.
    I was talking about Oxfam vilifying the rich not you!

    Although thinking about it (I haven't read your posts in this thread, just your response to mine) I wouldn't be surprised if you had.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    They pay a very different tax rate to you and me. We have to pay taxes. For them, it's entirely voluntary.

    Do you regard that as moral?
    Yes i do think it's moral especially as they're less likely to use services such as state education and healthcare.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I think he just believes that poverty can't be tackled through taxation.

    Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.

    Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.

    Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.

    If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
    Finally a sensible response. If you read the actual report by Oxfam, then you cna see the emphasis is on the economic system. That was the emphasis when I read it. I think their response would be they could come up with a system that produced less inequality, but you cna see their arguments in the report. The emphasis wasnt as people are describing though and considering thier whole aim is to tackle poverty, then being condemned for talking about it or raising it as an issue by TSR members is funny.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I think he just believes that poverty can't be tackled through taxation.

    Objectively, these people might own equivalent currency equal to the poorest half of the worlds ownership of currency. They do not own half of the worlds wealth, however, and currency is merely the simplest method of ensuring an efficient exchange of goods and services.

    Currency cannot feed someone, house someone or make someone healthy. Ultimately, it isn't currency at all that's the problem. The problem lies in inequality in the economic system itself.

    Communism results in a corrupt government deciding the distribution of wealth. Capitalism results in corrupt private individuals struggling to control the flow of wealth. It is far easier for corruption to take root and control in a Communist government than a Capitalist government.

    If you truly want to help the poor, ,come up with a fairer economic system than has previously been thought of. Or spend your own wealth to directly help the poor.
    We don't have to go to a Soviet system to have more fairness and a better, more productive, more growthful economy. The United States and Europe managed it quite happily for 50 years in the postwar consensus until neoliberalism took hold and the rich stopped paying their taxes. The marginal tax rate on the very wealthy was 70 and 80 percent in all western countries and it worked very well, recycling money into important social goals, pushing forwards technology and social progress and making the west inconceivably stronger than the Communist states.

    Now we are trapped in low growth and high social dislocation with falling tax revenues and most western governments facing major crises across the board in healthcare and numerous other basic goods for humanity about which there used to be little dispute. Only now, under the weirdo extremism of the neoliberals are we dumping all of the things that made life worthwhile in our countries - everything from public amenities to good roads, from decent schools to proper healthcare free at the point of use - in favour of the right of some billionaires to have bigger and bigger yachts.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.