Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
There isn't that easy a link between `inequality` and `poverty`, is there (the eradication of the latter being their core charitable objective)? Furthermore poverty worldwide (based on many metrics and in developing countries) has been falling whilst this supposed inequality has been rising so... hmm. Think they must've hired a ropey Comms Director or something, their last tranch of TV ads were shocking (and not in the `inspiring charitable giving` sense).
Inequality on this level is so obviously a bad thing it doesn't even warrant going into this kind of analysis. I don't care how reactionary this makes me sound or how easy it is for CG to make a quippy reply at this, it's just fucking true.
reducing poverty or reducing inequality?
One improves people's lives, the other is an ideology.
have tended to become conflated recently.
Even Thomas Piketty concedes that inequality at a certain level is essential for growth and poverty reduction in developed economies, so it's important to separate the two out.
the content of the argument is correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg
But `inequality` varies in its construction and impact across nations. Continents even. Campaigning on a statistic about how much `the 1%` have globally compared to the rest of the world isn't really that helpful in tackling the myriad problems that beset certain countries...
and contributes towards instigating a global socialist revolution.
Honestly there's sooooooo much research indicating a very strong correlation between income inequality and poverty that there really isnt much point debating it.
have seen the poorer get richer, no? I thought that was the point?
since 2008 in Britain the rich, especially the super-rich, have got richer while the vast majority of people have got poorer as their wages have stagnated and inflation has gone up
This is the problem with using a global measure. There are many countries who are seeing reductions on poverty by most traditional metrics (such as GPD, infant mortality rates, growth of middle class etc. etc.). The USA and Britain, for example have growing rates of inequality (not 100% statistically proven I don't think in Britain but I believe it to be true) - this is what folk like Piketty are analysing. All countries in the world are at different stages of the development lifecycle so to speak.
This is the reason Oxfam using a global inequality measure to talk about poverty, especially one which is pretty inaccurate, sits uneasy with me. But maybe oversimplifying these things helps get people interested. idk.
No trolling, please.
i see that name mentioned all the time but i have no idea who he/she actually is. the boards' lone tory or someing?
Feels like every week I'm bringing More or Less up in a discussion that's being had on here!
At what level of government funding does a charity no longer remain a charity?
than a private company or even large chunks of the public sector
good stuff. it should start trickling down any time now.
*holds trouser leg*
*shit trickles out regardless*
It does concern me that otherwise intelligent people are willing to just swallow statistics that fit their world view, without applying any critical analysis to them.
I mean I'm guilty of it too. Damn lies and statistics etc.
Global capitalism has eradicated poverty and generated prosperity in the developing world at an unprecedented rate.
"Global capitalism has eradicated poverty"
but the idea that its global capitalism that is doing it instead of a range of factors is laughable.
"destroy completely; put an end to." at the very most you could say poverty has been reduced, improved or mitigated. fantastic word choice in an article all about other people's supposedly ideological presentations of data
Just for the record I completely agree increasing wealth inequality is genuinely terrible.
Is that someone complaining that Oxfam are using the well-established equation of assets minus liabilities to determine net worth.
All it does is make the author sound like a self-denying cry-baby.
It's like gamergate articles where it's full of well-off white men wetting their pants about how the world owes them.
and assumes that Oxfam are not specifically campaigning against the aggregation of the former.
Wealth that doesn't move is of no use to an economy - capitalist or socialist - this article seems to think that seeking to end static and atrophying wealth is an attack on capitalism, when if fact it's necessary for it's survival.
What is the actual end-goal of being as rich as this? At what point do you stop and go "I've got way too much money here, it's totally pointless"?
I mean once you've bought a few nice houses, cars, etc and got enough for your dependents to live comfortably if you fall under a bus, there doesn't seem much point acruing wealth after that does there? I suppose in fairness some people do start giving it away once they get to that stage.
And it is a ridiculously simplistic (and ill-informed) opinion I admit but there's got to be a point where it just becomes abstract and completely meaningless.
it becomes more about playing the 'game'. You do it because you enjoy it. If you have masses of spare income I would imagine investing in companies (particularly start ups) is quite a laugh but also has the potential to become quite addictive - like gambling. Money just becomes the scorecard rather than the end goal.
Pretty obscene though regardless of politics frankly
most the really wealthy business people I've met have not even been 'money-motivated'. Some have been motivated by success, some by self-validation, some by believing they are doing something worthy. But money always seems to be a nice side effect.
"The top 1% now own 48% of global wealth, but even they aren’t happy. A survey by Boston College of people with an average net worth of $78m found that they too are assailed by anxiety, dissatisfaction and loneliness. Many of them reported feeling financially insecure: to reach safe ground, they believed, they would need, on average, about 25% more money. (And if they got it? They’d doubtless need another 25%). One respondent said he wouldn’t get there until he had $1 billion in the bank."
just the same as every other evil corporation :D
and no-one else had any