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?
