People before Profit - Communists?

spankysue · 17-02-2013 03:48PM #1

So, I saw a picture today that someone put up on Facebook, it was a pic of a child in rags carrying a load of other rags and on the picture it said:

During 2012, a year of global economic crisis, the world's 100 richest people gained a profit of over $240 billion, enough to end extreme poverty four times over. It's not a crisis, it's a scam, it's time to put an end to it.

Is it just me, or is this a mental way to think? Why should people who've worked for and earned their money just have to hand it over because other people are suffering?

It's a pretty naive way of thinking imo, even if billionaries did hand over their hard earned money to countries that are experiencing extreme poverty, what are the chances of the people who are really suffering would even see a penny of it?

In my eyes, this kind of people before profit thing is communism and communism only ever worked in theory.

Mr. Incognito · 17-02-2013 04:14PM

It's called socialism

Communism is a bastard child of socialism.

I wish people could educate themselves on political theory before they go around slapping labels on things.

It's like someone going into the fruit section of tesco and sticking apple on all the different types of fruit.

And anyway- is there a point or question in your post?

Lingua Franca · 17-02-2013 04:32PM

spankysue wrote: »

So, I saw a picture today that someone put up on Facebook, it was a pic of a child in rags carrying a load of other rags and on the picture it said:

During 2012, a year of global economic crisis, the world's 100 richest people gained a profit of over $240 billion, enough to end extreme poverty four times over. It's not a crisis, it's a scam, it's time to put an end to it.

Is it just me, or is this a mental way to think? Why should people who've worked for and earned their money just have to hand it over because other people are suffering?

Because they're hoarding all the cash? Because there's nothing you can personally gain from having such obscene figures in the bank, apart from having a higher number than anyone else?

Do you really believe that billionaires, since that's what we're talking about here, earned all of that money by themselves? No, someone was ripped off somewhere down the line. Companies rip off poorer countries for resources and cut wages and jobs at the stroke of a pen to hoard more wealth.

It's a pretty naive way of thinking imo, even if billionaries did hand over their hard earned money to countries that are experiencing extreme poverty, what are the chances of the people who are really suffering would even see a penny of it?

Ask the beneficiaries of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also benefitted from a donation of 83% of Warren Buffett's personal wealth.

In my eyes, this kind of people before profit thing is communism and communism only ever worked in theory.

"I saw this meme and therefore communists!" Now that's a mental way to think!

PBP were calling out companies for not paying their taxes before it was cool. They were saying that working and middle class people shouldn't have to pay for the bank bailouts and if big businesses like multinationals would just pay the taxes it has since been exposed that they were dodging, that cuts to public services wouldn't be needed. That's really not all that radical.

Not a single call to smash the state that I remember, perhaps you know differently?

latenia · 17-02-2013 04:33PM

spankysue wrote: »

Is it just me, or is this a mental way to think? Why should people who've worked for and earned their money just have to hand it over because other people are suffering?

It's a pretty naive way of thinking imo, even if billionaries did hand over their hard earned money

Hard earned me hole-over half of the people in the top 100 owe their fortune to corruption, theft and inheritance.

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

ITS_A_BADGER · 17-02-2013 05:34PM

The newspapers love printing these kinds of stories, if billionaires all gave x amount of their money it would solve poverty etc etc, sher is it not like running a story like if everybody in the world gave say (probably no where near enough) the equivilant of 50euro each it would solve poverty etc etc, They love conjuring up ideas to solve world hungar/poverty etc but how many are accurate solutions

cristoir · 17-02-2013 05:38PM

240 billion won't solve world poverty. Hell neither would 2.4 trillion. It's not an issue of money alone because the places effected by poverty need sound economic and social policies to leave poverty.

c_man · 17-02-2013 05:43PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Because they're hoarding all the cash? Because there's nothing you can personally gain from having such obscene figures in the bank, apart from having a higher number than anyone else

So let's get down to figures, how much of their wealth do you think you're entitled to?

hide2013 · 17-02-2013 05:43PM

the only thing that can end world poverty is capitalism. it may not be attractive all the time but no other system works as well for raising the average standard of living. greed works!
taking other peoples money and giving it to the poor just ensures lots of poor people and no rich people anymore. surely 70 years of socialism over most of the globe has proven something? but there are always a lot of left wing hypocrites posing as christians out there ready to peddle the nonesense you are quoting.

Lingua Franca · 17-02-2013 05:46PM

c_man wrote: »

So let's get down to figures, how much of their wealth do you think you're entitled to?

Me? First show us all where I said I was entitled to anything, then we'll get down to answering nonsensical questions.

RayM · 17-02-2013 05:46PM

hide2013 wrote: »

the only thing that can end world poverty is capitalism.

...and it's done a terrific job so far. Maybe we should add Capitalism to the list of things that "only work in theory".

Earthhorse · 17-02-2013 05:54PM

spankysue wrote: »

So, I saw a picture today that someone put up on Facebook, it was a pic of a child in rags carrying a load of other rags and on the picture it said:

During 2012, a year of global economic crisis, the world's 100 richest people gained a profit of over $240 billion, enough to end extreme poverty four times over. It's not a crisis, it's a scam, it's time to put an end to it.

Is it just me, or is this a mental way to think? Why should people who've worked for and earned their money just have to hand it over because other people are suffering?

It's a pretty naive way of thinking imo, even if billionaries did hand over their hard earned money to countries that are experiencing extreme poverty, what are the chances of the people who are really suffering would even see a penny of it?

In my eyes, this kind of people before profit thing is communism and communism only ever worked in theory.

What's mental to think is that the world's 100 richest people simply "worked hard to earn...their money" or that there is no moral imperative on the haves to help the have nots.

The fact that communism only ever worked in theory is no reason to accept that the present system is without its flaws and that these flaws shouldn't be pointed out or discussed; it's a pretty naive way of thinking.

cristoir · 17-02-2013 05:54PM

RayM wrote: »

...and it's done a terrific job so far. Maybe we should add Capitalism to the list of things that "only work in theory".

Is there more or less poverty in Europe than 100 years ago? Is there more or less poverty in India than 30 years ago? Is there more or less poverty in China since it opened its economy to limited capitalism?

This isn't an over night solution but in the long run capitalism is the best economic solution. Socialism does give more equality but everyone just has a fairer share of less.

TheBigLebowski · 17-02-2013 06:02PM

cristoir wrote: »

Is there more or less poverty in Europe then 100 years ago? Is there more or less poverty in India then 30 years ago? Is there more or less poverty in China since in opened it's economy to limited capitalism?

This isn't on over night solution but in the long run capitalism is the best economic solution. Socialism does give more equality but everyone just has a fairer share of less.

Than Than Than Than Than

smash · 17-02-2013 06:03PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Than [SIZE="3"]Than[/SIZE][SIZE="4"] Than [/SIZE][SIZE="5"]Than[/SIZE] [SIZE="7"]Than[/SIZE]

You forgot all the other mistakes!

cristoir wrote: »

Is there more or less poverty in Europe then 100 years ago? Is there more or less poverty in India then 30 years ago? Is there more or less poverty in China since in opened it's economy to limited capitalism?

This isn't on over night solution but in the long run capitalism is the best economic solution. Socialism does give more equality but everyone just has a fairer share of less.

Itwasntme. · 17-02-2013 06:06PM

I think Sachs with his 110 dollars per poor person per annum MVP experiment has shown that throwing money at the poverty problem does not make it go away.

While I disagree with most of the OP's post, I think she is right to say that even if that money were to be handed over to the poor, it's highly unlikely it would end poverty.

Poverty is an incredibly layered problem that needs all hands on deck so to speak. I think one of the biggest failures of every poverty eradication scheme and policy so far is the fact they have completely sidelined the people said policies were aimed at. Before anything else we should change the roots causes of the inequality like social exclusion in all its various forms in addition to remodeling short term solutions like foreign aid and the rest. It has to be a combined effort and everybody has to pull their weight otherwise all the money in the world won't change a thing.

Zillah · 17-02-2013 06:07PM

*hands out pots of various tones of grey paint to the class*

Unregulated capitalism is terrible for civilisation. Full communism is terrible for civilisation. Making it so that being rich is fundamentally impossible is unreasonable. Allowing people to accumulate staggering fortunes by using and abusing others, the system, and society is unreasonable. Is it really so hard to mix together a few different ideas? A well-regulated free market, with a decent level of social services supported by a graduated tax system leads to a healthy society. It's very hard to get it just right, but that's the general idea.

You need the right to profit for entrepreneurs to bother making new things and new ventures. We need regulations to prevent it becoming a libertarian nightmare with a slave underclass. We need taxes to pay for the running of the state. Simply stripping billionaires of their wealth wouldn't change society, that has to be done with policies, education and infrastructure. It takes time to drag a country up the development indexes. Those billionaires are already paying taxes. If any of them are dodging taxes that should be stopped. If any of them became billionaires by exploiting a lack of regulation then we should institute better regulation. Complex problems demands complex solutions.

NIMAN · 17-02-2013 06:07PM

Poverty will never end, the world needs poor people. Sad but true.

cristoir · 17-02-2013 06:08PM

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Than Than Than Than Than

My apologies :P

Earthhorse · 17-02-2013 06:12PM

Itwasntme. wrote: »

While I disagree with most of the OP's post, I think she is right to say that even if that money were to be handed over to the poor, it's highly unlikely it would end poverty.

As far as I can see the OP is the only person suggesting that though.

CollardGreens · 17-02-2013 06:15PM

the only thing that can end world poverty is capitalism. it may not be attractive all the time but no other system works as well for raising the average standard of living. greed works!
taking other peoples money and giving it to the poor just ensures lots of poor people and no rich people anymore. surely 70 years of socialism over most of the globe has proven something? but there are always a lot of left wing hypocrites posing as christians out there ready to peddle the nonesense you are quoting.

YES! Totally correct!

Happy, happy, happy

the_syco · 17-02-2013 06:15PM

It's a nice way to gain members, but in reality, how much would end up the charity owners back pocket, in the country, in the countries military, it's gangs, and the people it's meant to be helping? I'd say if that amount has split up, it cause wars between them. If everyone became on an equal footing, wars would break out over food, water, and power, but electrical and political.

In short, the money would cause more people to die, more people to become poor, and the only people who'd profit would be the arms dealers and the CEOs of the charities.

A cynical view? Yes. But not naive.

ScumLord · 17-02-2013 06:31PM

spankysue wrote: »

Is it just me, or is this a mental way to think? Why should people who've worked for and earned their money just have to hand it over because other people are suffering?

How do you know they worked for any of it? The top one percent are very rich. Often richer than any person could be in one lifetime meaning the wealth was passed down. They own everything and you work for them. It's everyone else that is doing the hard work but they benefit.

It's no different to when the peasants over threw the kings because the wealth was stuck at the top. Any time there is an unbalance in society it will end up with the people loosing out fighting for more.

In my eyes, this kind of people before profit thing is communism and communism only ever worked in theory.

You could say the same for capitalism. Europe isn't fully capitalist and never will be. Europeans aren't prepared to walk over a starving person to get over paid for things they don't need.

Human society isn't made up of individuals, it's a colony of humans. People are social animals that depend on each other. We need to ensure everyone in the community is taken care of, our modern large cities have made people disposable and is nothing like human civilisation up to this point. Privacy was barely even possible up until the 17th century when corridors where first invented.

People have forgotten that it's groups of humans that are powerful, individual humans are next to useless.

sock puppet · 17-02-2013 06:42PM

RayM wrote: »

...and it's done a terrific job so far. Maybe we should add Capitalism to the list of things that "only work in theory".

What an odd post. Some of the world's poorest countries are also some of the fastest growing.

ScumLord wrote: »

How do you know they worked for any of it? The top one percent are very rich. Often richer than any person could be in one lifetime meaning the wealth was passed down. They own everything and you work for them. It's everyone else that is doing the hard work but they benefit.

Not really. The top few hedge fund managers for example can make billions in one year. Then you have company founders like Larry Ellison. Òf course there's the odd Saudi prince etc. in those lists as well. Even many of those guys who inherited wealth would have then grown it themselves.

Adrien Broner · 17-02-2013 06:45PM

Wealth is created through innovation, improving technology, greater efficiency, wiser management of resources etc.

Without the incentive for the individual/companies to benefit from above monetarily the aggregate effort to achieve the above the less wealth is created.

Without capitalism the worlds food supply would be greatly diminished there would probably be greater famine and poverty.

Socialism would simply ensure everyone gets an equal share of a vastly diminished pie. Poverty all round.

ScumLord · 17-02-2013 06:52PM

Adrien Broner wrote: »

Wealth is created through innovation, improving technology, greater efficiency, wiser management of resources etc.

Wealth isn't really related to those things any more. Banks generate wealth through loans now. We didn't have an economic crash because we ran out of innovation. If efficiency was a concern we wouldn't charge less for buying more, that breeds inefficiency.

Without the incentive for the individual/companies to benefit from above monetarily the aggregate effort to achieve the above the less wealth is created.

Didn't seem to stop humans at any other stage in history. The pyramids weren't built for profit. We've been fooled into thinking this is the only way.

Without capitalism the worlds food supply would be greatly diminished there would probably be greater famine and poverty.

Why?

Socialism would simply ensure everyone gets an equal share of a vastly diminished pie. Poverty all round.

It's impossible to give everyone an equal share. Socialism is about looking after the community as a whole rather than an every man for himself. Capitalism is the crudest system we've had to date. It might as well be survival of the fittest. Humans left that type of thinking behind millennia ago.

Adrien Broner · 17-02-2013 07:02PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Wealth isn't really related to those things any more. Banks generate wealth through loans now. We didn't have an economic crash because we ran out of innovation. If efficiency was a concern we wouldn't charge less for buying more, that breeds inefficiency.

Didn't seem to stop humans at any other stage in history. The pyramids weren't built for profit. We've been fooled into thinking this is the only way.

Why?

It's impossible to give everyone an equal share. Socialism is about looking after the community as a whole rather than an every man for himself. Capitalism is the crudest system we've had to date. It might as well be survival of the fittest. Humans left that type of thinking behind millennia ago.

Sustainable wealth is created through innovation etc.

There may be other motives to innovate but by far the greatest is monetary gain.

With inferior technology there is less food output which could lead to more famine.

kowloon · 17-02-2013 07:03PM

hide2013 wrote: »

the only thing that can end world poverty is capitalism. it may not be attractive all the time but no other system works as well for raising the average standard of living. greed works!
taking other peoples money and giving it to the poor just ensures lots of poor people and no rich people anymore. surely 70 years of socialism over most of the globe has proven something? but there are always a lot of left wing hypocrites posing as christians out there ready to peddle the nonesense you are quoting.

I think we can safely say the above is rubbish. I suggest some reading on the effects of lax regulation. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.

Adrien Broner · 17-02-2013 07:04PM

kowloon wrote: »

I think we can safely say the above is rubbish. I suggest some reading on the effects of lax regulation. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.

I think I can safely say most don't want capitalism with no rules whatsoever.

ScumLord · 17-02-2013 07:23PM

Adrien Broner wrote: »

With inferior technology there is less food output which could lead to more famine.

Why would our technology become inferior without the capitalist system? It would be the same as it was, necessary is the mother of all invention, capitalism just knows haw to market that invention so that more people can use it. There's plenty of innovation that's crushed or hidden because there's no profit in it.

I have no doubt that the age we're living in now is the best one so far in many ways. Capitalism has created a hotbed of creativity but it has a lot of baggage causing as much disruption.

I'm not saying we should abandon capitalism for socialism but capitalism isn't perfect in many ways it's inherently flawed. I don't see any advantage in assuming it can't make it any better.

IceFjoem · 17-02-2013 07:28PM

latenia wrote: »

Hard earned me hole-over half of the people in the top 100 owe their fortune to corruption, theft and inheritance.

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

I'm no CTer but that list strikes me as fishy in the extreme, only four bankers in the top 100, bullsh%t!

Sh1tbag OToole · 17-02-2013 07:29PM

OP is a senseless uneducated attack on a new political party who are trying to do something different. What do you prefer? Sticking to the FF+FG+Lab+SF mainstream political parties who have done nothing for us.

Go on denounce them all as commies and keep voting for your comfortable devil you know mainstream party of choice pretending you're making a difference to the sh1tty situation Ireland finds itself in

People before Profit - Communists?

Comments