Live 8 and Africa

GREED
If our economic systems really worked as well as it is argued they do, no one would be living in poverty and there would be a far greater sharing of economic resources.  What does a billionaire pay as a percentage in tax to the government as opposed to the percentage that a low to middle class wage employee pay (the greatest percentage of the workforce)

Who for example is getting the economic benefits out of military spending?

The world is a stage and we are but little 'bit' players in it.

Most great wealth is about 'good fortune' - being in the right place at the right time. Most billionaires were born into family wealth, they didn't earn it at all.

The richest person in our country thinks nothing about dropping a cool 30 million dollars or so at the casinos around the world when it suits his fancy. What does that trickle down to. A rich Japanese, American or Saudi businessman?

The idea that most rich people are philanthropic, like Bill Gates, is laughable, and even what he gives, which is a great amount, is but a small segment of his overall wealth. There are a few who give, but they are in the minority. 

If the weathiest people in the world, got together tomorrow and made a decision to 'give' five percent of their personal wealth, and it was responsibly and humanely distributed amongst those in greatest need including job creation, the economic (not political) crisis in Africa would be turned around tomorrow.

It is greed and a lack of will on the part of the richest and most powerful people in the world that continues to undermine the poorest. The richest countries in the world have benefited greatly from the 'cheap' resources they have taken from their former 'colonies' and any 'decent' response would be that they 'give' back just a little of what they have taken.

There is no justification for ignoring the incredible destitution of people when you have even a small amount to spare, let alone the disgustingly rich. The disgustingly wealthy derive their riches from the masses and it is to the masses that they should return some of the spoils of their prosperity.

It is good that the governments of countries are going to increase aid and give from their treasuries, the finances of the people, but the ones with the greatest capacity to give, very rarely  give what it is within their capacity to.

What could anyone possibly need with 10, 50 or a 100 billion dollars in personal fortunes. The wealth of the few is a disgusting plight on the poverty of the many. It is totally unjustifiable - except in a greedy, self-centred world that has no true compassion for the most disadvantaged in our societies


Edited by barbs

James Lee wrote: Not a 'progressive' either, but keep trying.  So though the government and wall street have instituted cyclic periods where the economy will be worse for the people, the people retain their greater ability to influence the economy? Do you feel that you (or even thousands of you) have as much influence on the economy as <font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" face="arial, helvetica, sans serif" size="2">Joshua Bolten or <font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" face="arial, helvetica, sans serif" size="2">Carlos Gutierrez? I must not be understanding your points today...are you saying that those tax laws and incentives weren't any assistance to you in building your business, or that the VA loan was not generated by taxpayer funds and dispensed at the discretion of the government? I'm not belittling your achievements or work, I'm just trying to figure out if you are saying that government should or shouldn't provide assistance to people...and if they should, then only to certain people?

Basically all I'm saying is that you can't hold a President necessarily accountable for the CAUSE of a recession. Like most people do. You can only hold them accountable for taking action when one occurs. I've never looked at the last recession as the "Bush" recession like Maani does. But I don't call it the Clinton recession either even though it did initially start on his watch when the stock market started to plummett in March of 2000. Layoffs in the steel industry right here in Ohio were going down in July 2000. I know, I remember reading about it in the papers. Steel mills were closing down left and right here.
I guess if you really want to point fingers at anybody, it would be Greenspan. He should of lowered the Fed at the first sign of trouble. And he didn't.

And BTW Barbs, the best giving a rich person can do to a poor person is not just simply giving money but giving the tools for that person get themselves out of poverty. Which is what is needed in Africa. The only thing stopping that is the oppressive governments there.
We tried the old "lets just give them money" routine right here in our own country for over 40 years. It was called Johnson's Great Society and it was a total failure. 90 and even 70 percent tax brackets don't help at all.

Edited by marktheshark

marktheshark wrote: Basically all I'm saying is that you can't hold a President necessarily accountable for the CAUSE of a recession. Like most people do. You can only hold them accountable for taking action when one occurs. I've never looked at the last recession as the "Bush" recession like Maani does. But I don't call it the Clinton recession either even though it did initially start on his watch when the stock market started to plummett in March of 2000. Layoffs in the steel industry right here in Ohio were going down in July 2000. I know, I remember reading about it in the papers. Steel mills were closing down left and right here. I guess if you really want to point fingers at anybody, it would be Greenspan. He should of lowered the Fed at the first sign of trouble. And he didn't. And BTW Barbs, the best giving a rich person can do to a poor person is not just simply giving money but giving the tools for that person get themselves out of poverty. Which is what is needed in Africa. The only thing stopping that is the oppressive governments there. We tried the old "lets just give them money" routine right here in our own country for over 40 years. It was called Johnson's Great Society and it was a total failure. 90 and even 70 percent tax brackets don't help at all.

Imagine that, a MtS post that I totally agree with!

The president does have an impact on the state of the economy, but I agree that one cannot blame him exclusively for it. There are so many constantly evolving factors that affect the economy that it would be silly to lay the blame solely on one person, or even on one administration in general. The only thing we can be sure of is that when the economy is good, everyone wants their guy to get credit...and when it is bad, they want to blame the other guy. It's all part of desperately trying to understand the world with an artificial, imposed sense of duality.

And I even agree with you about Africa, and even somewhat about the US- 'aid and assistance' does not mean money. I see most world leaders as absentee parents, who hand their children a wad of cash and then leave to 'take care of business', thinking that their hard work and money will automatically guarantee that their children grow up properly (if they think about it at all). Not that Africa is our child, of course, but then again most metaphors don't bear close examination...


Edited by James Lee