This year's Forbe's World's Billionaires list broke records in number of billionaires (1,210 billionaires) and total net worth ($4.5 trillion), and includes only the individuals that make their money on a legal and public stage. While the extremely wealthy were breaking numbers during the economic crisis of the past three years, an estimated 64 million people were added to the 1.4 billion population of those living in extreme poverty, meaning in times of economic crisis, the wealth inequity gap gets wider. The rich get richer and the poorer get poorer.
Does this make sense? Is there not a human responsibility for just and equitable treatment of everyone, and closing the gap between extreme wealth and poverty? Can we realistically achieve an end to poverty by merely shifting around funds that address aspects of poverty but not poverty itself?
These astonishingly simple questions are faced with complex philosophies, are highly political and are definitely a taboo subject for anyone in public office. Questioning the ethical practices of unregulated market forces and unbridled capitalism is often accompanied with powerful objection and circular reasoning.
The word wealth itself, originated in the 13th century and modelled on the word health, gives power in the forms of monetary funds, social standing and capacity. Is it so unjust to expect that the wealthiest of individuals, having the most power, to heighten their responsibility and take on the burden of extreme poverty (a population with little or no power)?
The wealthiest no longer make their billions in their community or country alone, their net worth is derived from global dividends, the global community is therefore the focus of charity and humanitarian movements made because their society has been globalized. Globalization and technology have made it possible for more and more people to make personal commitments.
To explore this a bit more, a calculation of how redistribution would work in order to keep the billionaires billionaires and the extreme poor shift to moderately poor. If there are 1.4 billion people that should make $1.25 per day (365 days) for the next 5 years (as per the 2015 Millenium Development Goal, MDGs), the calculation is this: 1.4 Billion (($1.25 x 365 days (5 years))= $3.19 Trillion (USD)If you take $3.19 trillion USD from the $4.5 trillion net worth, that leaves $1.31 Trillion to distribute to the 1,200 billionaires, which still qualify them for the list at $1.09 billion per individual. Essentially taking out the extremely wealthy and redistributing wealth to the extremely poor would encourage and support the eight millennium goals and accomplish the aim to end poverty by 2015.
It all comes back to us; we can make efforts to improve education, health and reach the other MDGs but individuals are the building blocks to the global society and it is about asking the wealthiest people to contribute their fair share to redress the wealth gap that exists. While this is political suicide, it is the right path to take as a global society.
So yes, WE can end poverty but it means advocating for the wealthiest to take a radical role in closing the gap of extreme economic inequity, will you ask them?
Robin Hood style, rob the rich to feed the poor! I doubt that those people would be at a loss to their lifestyle having to drop their wealth to 1.09 billion dollars. How much would the average person stand to gain from taking 3 trillion dollars from the rich?
ReplyDeleteBut even if you divide up the 3.41 trillion dollars to the 1.4 billion people living in poverty, that only comes up to 2,435 dollars per person living in poverty. Does that get them out of poverty?
http://books.google.com/books?id=PNI9tqKVicIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+end+of+poverty&source=gbs_book_similarbooks#v=onepage&q&f=false
ReplyDeleteNice piece - and close to Jeffrey Sachs' end poverty stuff (though he didn't provide the math in the detail you have!). I suppose a big question would be around whether or not all the world's wealth is actually tangible? In the recent crash, though 'trillions were wiped off the value' of something, not all the trillions actually existed physically, but were instead speculations and based on 'assumed worth'.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to redistribute wealth per se (which is a good thing of course), we need to ascertain how much real - physical - wealth there is, down to the last coin and note :)
A very nice thought process. Redistribute the wealth is a very simple answer to a very diffilcult problem. Think about to teach a man to fish answer vs giving him a fish to eat. Starting at the very bottom you first have to stop the worlds population growth which uses up our limtied supply of natural resources causing inflation which makes in turn your $1.25 a day worth even less. This is a global problem which needs a global solution.
ReplyDelete@Bryan: The line of EXTREME poverty is at $1.25 per day according to the World Bank, So for 5 years, at 1.25, that would qualify them to be moderately poor. It's not a fix, I just though numbers would help envision the type of inequity going on.
ReplyDelete@Santo: Great book, has a great underlining moral code.
@Ian: I suspected a comment from you, yes, it is true, actual net worth is much harder to map out then I have described here, but it's the underlining responsibility that the most powerful (the wealthiest) should take on for the cause to end extreme poverty. even if they contribute some more money for development and capacity building projects, the wealth distribution wouldn't be so inequitable.
@Anonymous: Sustainability in development and capacity building projects would obviously be a source that could help the whole "teach a man to fish" solution...the intention was to point out that the wealth is ridiculously ill-distributed and that attention needs to be drawn on every level especially those that have so much power.
-I suppose overall I wasn't thinking that the fat cat billionaires would walk into a bar with briefcases filled with cash and just hand it over. There are complex and critical programmes and practices in place that need a great deal of funding to reach goals such as eradicating extreme poverty.