LINKY (http://www.globalrichlist.com/)
(http://www.doyouremember.co.uk/images/memorabilia/People/loadsamoney-harry-enfield-a.jpg)
Very interesting .... makes you think eh..!
omg, even with my student income (about 65 euro per month):
You are in the top 47.18% richest people in the world.
There are 3,168,678,304 people poorer than you.
How do you feel about that? A bit richer we hope. Please consider donating just a small amount to help some of the poorest people in the world. Many of their lives could be improved dramatically or even saved if you donate just one hour's salary (approx â,¬0.54)
That stuff makes you think ..
:blink:
I'm the 107,826,087 richest person on earth!
There are 5,892,173,913 people poorer than you.
:blink:
i feel bad
im 52,629,265
You are in the top 0.877% richest people in the world.
There are 5,947,370,735 people poorer than you.
time to stop doing overtime :blink:
I can't believe that Im in the top 7.5% with the sh!ty money im on
I have no need to look at 'LINKY' cos I know I'm exceedingly rich. :ph34r:
Did you see the link at the bottom.
How rich are you compared to the rest of the UK, here (http://www.channel4.com/4money/funnymoney/richometer/index.html).
kinda strange that i am @ the top 30% with me â,¬1200,- a year :S
i surely dont have that feeling when i look on my bankaccount
Am I poor? Of course not! Am I rich? No, I am not _rich_. I am not in need though, and there's a pretty big difference between being rich and being not-in-need.
These kind of comparisons makes your income seem wildly out of proportion when you consider the pathetic amount of money the poorest people have (or rather don't have). I am not poor (just got a new job :)) BUT you have to take into account that I pay 50% of that income back to the state in taxes AND the extortionate price levels here. That applies to every kind of goods you can imagine. Take house prices for instance: A 55 sqm house in this little suburban city I live in can easily cost around £250.000... A Suzuki Alto costs £10.500 compared to £5.000 in the UK.
Of course these are mostly material concerns, but I wish that sites like this one would take living costs into the calculations. When I was in China at first I was stunned by the low prices on everything. A pair of nice leather shoes £7, a meal at a restaurant £0,12.... 'Wow, this is really cheap!!!' YES, to me because my scrappy savings are proportionately larger in China, but to the ordinary chinese nothing is really cheap at all. A guy I met was talking about a luxurious 200+ sqm house by the lakeside, a real dreamhouse that he would never be able to afford. That was about £40.000. Please compare that to the 55 sqm I mentioned earlier...
I am sorry about the rant, but I am so tired of having to feel guilty about living in a place that provides the means to a good amount of security and safety regarding the necessities to survive.
Oh well, just to finish off by polishing my halo, I'm donating £6 every month to Amnesty Int. Am I generous or what?!?
EDIT: Wow, where did that angry old man come from? ;)
You are in the top 13.54% richest people in the world.
There are 5,187,539,068 people poorer than you.
great
there is no way that is correct, no way am I in the top 25% of the UK, maybe if I was on what Im on 10 years ago, but not now.
QuoteOriginally posted by mono_dna@Mar 10 2006, 10:19 PM
I am sorry about the rant, but I am so tired of having to feel guilty about living in a place that provides the means to a good amount of security and safety regarding the necessities to survive.
We should only feel guilty if our own countries and societies were responible for the current levels of global poverty in the world. Only if people died as a direct result of our control of global markets, our creation of restrictive trade barriers that keep 10% of the population wealthy at the expense of the other 90%, should we feel guilt. If we lived in a world where 20% of the global population consumed 86% of the world’s goods while 80% of humanity got just the remainder 14%, then we might feel we were somehow responsible. If we spent more each year on purfume and cosmetics in the US and Europe (13 billion dollars) than would be required to solve all the world sanitation and food shortages, then guilt would probably be the right thing to feel.
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Mar 14 2006, 12:30 PM
We should only feel guilty if our own countries and societies were responible for the current levels of global poverty in the world. Only if people died as a direct result of our control of global markets, our creation of restrictive trade barriers that keep 10% of the population wealthy at the expense of the other 90%, should we feel guilt. If we lived in a world where 20% of the global population consumed 86% of the world’s goods while 80% of humanity got just the remainder 14%, then we might feel we were somehow responsible. If we spent more each year on purfume and cosmetics in the US and Europe (13 billion dollars) than would be required to solve all the world sanitation and food shortages, then guilt would probably be the right thing to feel.
[post=116959]Quoted post[/post]
.......and of course we should feel guilty if we "allowed" leaders of many of those countries without sanitation and food\housing to be in the top 10% of the wealthy whilst their fellow countrymen starve and live in poor conditions, if we sold arms to them to propogate internal subjegation and brutality, if we sold them top of the range air conditioned limosines instead of insisting they spend it on their countrymen and if we then allowed them to live unhindered once they had stripped their countries wealth and stashed it in their personal accounts.....think the finger needs pointing there first old son!! ;)
The amount of money stolen by corrupt political leaders in the developing world pales into insignificance compared to the money denied to the people of those countries by trade tarrifs and barriers and commercial protectionism by the wealthy nations of the world. We may wish to shift our collective responsibility onto corrupt officials but it doesn't work. And of course where you force a people to live in poverty you create an environment where corruption can thrive. Corruption is a product of poverty and not the other way round.
But once corruption is in place, it becomes self-reinforcing, and increases the poverty...
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Mar 14 2006, 06:45 PM
Corruption is a product of poverty and not the other way round.
[post=117048]Quoted post[/post]
Interesting concept......but doesn't explain why all the highly paid government officials are the ones who are corrupt, after all, it's hardly the poor siphoning off from the rich, rather the other way around I think you'll find.
......bit like the current Labour Government in truth, so I hope you are all happy now you "new labourers" you!!, we know who you are and when the day of the revolution comes.................
You'll be first in the TAX Line (provided of course we can discover just how many houses you have!! :whistle: :devil: )
Corruption thrives in an environment of poverty or political apathy. Poverty is not a consequence of corrupt officials. Global poverty cannot be blamed on corruption. Billions upon billions of pounds of trade that should go to the developing world doesn't end up in the pockeys of a few corrupt officials or local warlords. It ends up in the profits of western run business, and indirectly provides us with the affluent lifestyles we have become acustomed to.
We have a collective responsibility for the state of the world and the degree to which we choose to share its wealth fairly. If we are happy to keep the world as it is, then fine. If we don't like what we see, then we change it. What we shouldn't do is decide we don't like what we are doing, and then in order to shirk our own moral responsibility simply try to blame it on someone else.
That is called hypocracy
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Mar 16 2006, 12:41 AM
We have a collective responsibility for the state of the world and the degree to which we choose to share its wealth fairly.
That is called hypocracy
[post=117340]Quoted post[/post]
isn't that called communism? :P
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon+Mar 16 2006, 01:41 AM-->QUOTE(smilodon @ Mar 16 2006, 01:41 AM)
Global poverty cannot be blamed on corruption. [/b]Neither is corruption the product of poverty as you stated earlier. Otherwise rich countries would not be corrupt. Corruption is the product of greed.
QuoteDID YOU
KNOW...?
Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.
mebey bill gates should give more money away :blush: i couldnt look at my self in the the miror if i know that.
QuoteOriginally posted by noevra@Mar 16 2006, 10:45 AM
mebey bill gates should give more money away :blush: i couldnt look at my self in the the miror if i know that.
[post=117379]Quoted post[/post]
Bill Gates apparently already gives a bucket load of money away and runs a Foundation with his wifey. Still has loads of change left over though.
(http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/capacity.jpg)
(http://www.storms-uk.com/uploadedimages/basketcat.jpg)
I was getting tired of this thread ... then you two come along :roflmao:
QuoteOriginally posted by Gandalf-LordOfJelly+Mar 16 2006, 09:03 AM-->QUOTE(Gandalf-LordOfJelly @ Mar 16 2006, 09:03 AM)
isn't that called communism? :P
[post=117360]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/I]
Nope I don't think you can. Communism would be a forced mechanism that decided what people would own based on some sort of set of fixed rules. And the rules would be fixed by those with power. Which is exactly what happens now. A free global society would be one that allowed for unrestricted trade across the world. Where artificial tarriffs and trade barriers were removed and where a person could make as much or as little money as the free market would allow. What we have now is far closer to communism that an open global market.
QuoteOriginally posted by TeaLeaf@Mar 16 2006, 09:53 AM
Neither is corruption the product of poverty as you stated earlier. Otherwise rich countries would not be corrupt. Corruption is the product of greed.
TL.
[post=117366]Quoted post[/post]
We've already battered the World Poverty haddock to death in previous Seriously Though posts.
Everyone is pretty much aware of everyone's respective viewpoints on the issue, so indeed, this seemingly isn't a serious debate, proved by the lack of length in the posts. More just people commenting on a piece of Charity propaganda methinks. (Which is essentially what the website in the first post is.) So there we go...
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Mar 16 2006, 12:16 PM
But poverty is a catalyst for corruption.
You could equally argue that corruption is a catalyst for poverty. By definition there has to be a loser. QED.
And yep, it probably should be over in Seriously.......thread transferred :D
TL.
QuoteOriginally posted by TeaLeaf@Mar 16 2006, 02:51 PM
You could equally argue that corruption is a catalyst for poverty. By definition there has to be a loser. QED.
And yep, it probably should be over in Seriously.......thread transferred :D
TL.
[post=117441]Quoted post[/post]
It
did start off a bit banterish I thought ;)
Threads change as they go I guess.
And the word propoganda is interesting. I saw the web site more as an illustration of the huge difference in levels of wealth in the world. Kind of made me think again when I moaned how hard up I felt. If it is propoganda. then is that a technique charities should not use? Is an attempt to make us feel guilty a fair method for raising money, awareness etc. ?
In the past we have been encouraged to feel good about ourselves if we gave to charity. A quarter of a million people died in the Tsumani of 2004 and we happily gave millions, because it wasn't our fault those people died and we felt good about helping the survivors.
But now charitable organisations are highlighting the fact that they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is us who are primarily responsible for the deaths of a quarter of a million people a week, every week. Now we are being asked to do something not because we want to but because we are morally obligated to. I think it doesn't feel so good to undo damage we have been accused of causing ourselves. Seems altruism is a greater mover of people to do something noble and good than guilt is?
I don't know. Guilt has been a standard charity tool for years. NSPCC adverts, Animal welfare adverts etc. Primarily it has been used to make us feel guilty about our inaction. This has simply been taken a step further in this case. There's nothing new there. Tsunami was a freak event and generated a freak response.
All other charity things simply work on guilt, by claiming moral superiority. No reason why they shouldn't use it, it's just as valid as any other advertising method.
Wow, from money that my parents give me every month and grandparents, im in the top 30ish % :blink:
QuoteOriginally posted by Sinap@Mar 21 2006, 01:16 AM
Wow, from money that my parents give me every month and grandparents, im in the top 30ish % :blink:
[post=118273]Quoted post[/post]
Don't you just hate people who inherit money!!? :D :D
You are in the top 13.24% richest people in the world.
There are 5,205,329,883 people poorer than you.
How do you feel about that? A bit richer we hope. Please consider donating just a small amount to help some of the poorest people in the world. Many of their lives could be improved dramatically or even saved if you donate just one hour's salary (approx €5.83)
umm yeah right.. like wth..
i have 20lm in my bank account, and owe my mum around 500 more :/
QuoteOriginally posted by Gorion@Mar 31 2006, 10:35 AM
umm yeah right.. like wth..
It's probably not such a bad guesstimate. Take into consideration places like Africa, China, India, think about their population sizes, think about how much people there earn (if anything) and consider the currency & goods rates and it all becomes clear.
Of course everything's relative, so while you may be near/below the average in your own country/city, that country/city may be entirely on a different level to others! I think my PhD grant fares reasonably well against the average in Bristol, but is substandard in london and would be well above the average back home in Zimbabwe...
p.s. I'm richer than you :narnar: