Topic: Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population - page 2. (Read 2467 times)

Why would they accept working 20h a day then? Oo
Why in the Earth would the continue this way and stoped migrating illegaly or creating terrorist channels???

yes and so am i

Hmmm... No! That's the main point of the study. It's to study the individuals' wealth. If you take the money and value of the companies the lead then the amounts would be incredibly bigger!

This is slightly misleading. It is not the individuals who own all this wealth. On the other hand, it is the corporations such as Google, Microsoft, Cargill, Exxon Mobil, Apple, Shell, Chevron, Ford.etc. The individuals only act as a mask for these corporations, and most of the time these individuals are multi-billionaires only in name.

The banks control their money unless they hold crypto-currency.  They are the richest institutions of the world.

So you want them to continue working like dumbass while cutting their demographic growth? Oo

Edit: I'm talking about the billions of Chinese Africans and Indians workers killing themselves at work right now

that's not what i said at all

how did we get from "a couple of billion europeans, koreans and japs, along with some of the chinese elite and higher grade indians" to "everyone" ?

But you just said you wanted to put an end to their demographic development in order for everyone to be able to live a more western life 

If you want to reduce China/India/Africa population they won't be enough to produce what you consume!

the same people who are producing it now

So who will work 20h a day for your computer man?
They're migrating and organizing rebellions/terrorism only because they refuse to continue being the slave of western countries. But your "european elites" can't live their developed way of life without billions of slaves working for them...

So I'll ask you again, who will produce what you're currently consuming?

there is currently enough land to provide meat for a couple of billion europeans, koreans and japs, along with some of the chinese elite and higher grade indians. there is not enough land to produce meat for billions of peasants.

they can and they are, that doesn't mean i have to like it and call it a wonderful thing. it is going to make us all poorer if we don't do something to stop it and like i told the other guy, i care more about defending the interests of my people than feeding luxury foods to a bunch of savages because i'm not a faggot sjw

and their consumption wasn't an issue when they were content to have only that bowl of rice but it is becoming a problem now that the internet's given them a glimpse of the good life and they are illegally migrating here in their millions, organising rebellions/terrorism and generally making mischief around the world.

i don't want to "kill them all". i want to reduce their populations to manageable levels with a one child policy.

THANK YOU!

Somedy seeing the truth here ^^
The keynesian model is an abomination. It was a good idea for a transition but can't be a finished model. The reason why it's still taught in universities around the world is because the people who benefit from this model don't want to change that's all.

The simple idea of an economy needing growth to be in good health is the more stupid and delusional idea ever!

This is a spectacular illustration about how flawed the keynesian model really is. But this was known since ages, so I don't understand why this is so surprising for some.

Totally true. The problem is that in our modern society, money=power so concentration of money means concentration of power. Having few people filthily rich means they can do whatever they want.

If what they wanted was the greater good, I wouldn't mind. Problem is it's not the case, power calls for power so they only want more. That's why it should be regulated. What one man can do of dozens of billions of dollars anyway? You could take 90% of what he has he wouldn't even know it xD

I wouldn't mind much if they were actually using a lot of their money for something meaningful. Just imagine what a $1 Trillion R&D budget could to for a few technologies.

Even if you put those out of equation (I'm not saying that I'd support your proposal), they're exponentially richer than a lot of 1st world people combined.

5 billion africans who didn't need to be born? Seriously?
And you're totally wrong. 90% of deforestation comes from agriculture. Which mostly leads to meat production. You're by far more responsible of deforestation than the expansion of third world cities you moron.


So the fact that our western countries have known THE EXACT SAME PHENOMENON of demographic growth doesn't count? It means that as we reproduced like rabbits a century ago they can't do it now?
What hypocrisy...


Ok on this one you definitely are the dumbest and most horrible kind of person possible. Don't you understand anything? They consume in order to produce things FOR US!

But at least you are right on the fact that killing all of them would answer the problem... But who will cultivate your corns? Make your clothes? Produce your computers?
Of course we can kill them all. But I hope you agree to work 20h a day as they do eating a bawl of rice a day.

third world peoples are better off largely because they are burning coal and destroying forests and beautiful wildlife to make more space for their cities and even distribution would result in a drastic drop in our (the civilised countries) quality of life. for example right now i get to eat meat every day, should i agree to eat it only once a week so that 5 billion africans who didn't need to be born can also eat it once a week instead of never? i don't think so.

the third world population has been expanding rapidly and will peak at about 9 billion as you say, the current population of nigeria was same as the population of the whole of africa when my mother was born. the 7 billion people we have now can barely be sustained at current levels of resource consumption let alone 9 billion who are all going to demand electricity, air travel, protein rich diets and whatnot, and will probably engage in revolutions and terrorism to get them. something has to give.

either we reduce the third world population with contraception and sterilisation,  be it forced or connected to international aid, or we agree to have marxism, impoverish ourselves and redistribute most of what we have to poor countries on the basis of to each according to his need. how disgraceful it is that our civilisation produces so many pussies who care more about niggers who aren't born yet than defending there own interests.

But the earth's population isn't doubling. In fact the human population growth rate is slowing quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwfH1gYkXTw
In a few decades, human population will level off somewhere around 9-10 billion or so. There is enough food in the world to feed over 11 billion iirc assuming the food was evenly distributed.

In addition, standards of living are improving, even the vast majority 3rd world countries are significantly better now than they were just 10 years ago.
"In 1990, the percentage of the global population living in extreme poverty was 43.1%, but in 2010, that percentage had dropped down to 20.6%."

Always been so and always will be the same. So few live well many more must live worse. It is what happens for example with the working class people compared to the third world.

Very simple, eliminate the billions of piss poor good for nothing third world people.

Problem Solved