Why are we struggling to survive if we no longer need to?

[mindatrisk]

Hello. For a few years now I've known what my 'life mission' is and have slowly I've been gathering my thoughts and ideas. I am now ready to get the ball rolling. What I am developing is a movement with the aim of achieving material security for all human beings. I'm in the process of writing a manifesto, and I have numerous project ideas in development too. I've written an 'introduction to the Enough movement' that i'm going to start sharing, with the hope of spreading the idea, gaining support, and building a team. I'd just like some feedback on this 'introduction' before I start to share. Perhaps something is unclear and needs better explaining, perhaps some extra information about a certain aspect is needed... and so on. So any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you.

......

Why are we struggling to survive if we no longer need to?

An Introduction to the ‘Enough’ movement

Humanity now has the means, the resources, and the collective will for all human beings to live in material security… no one, no longer need struggle to survive. Through our technological and social development, we are now able to ensure that every human being on this planet has the food, water, shelter, medicine, safety, and education, not just to survive, but to thrive too.

For the first time in 3.8 billion years of evolution, amongst billions of species to have existed, one species - our species - is poised to transcend the violent, desperate struggle for survival. This truly remarkable accomplishment needs now only to be realised and made manifest. The Enough movement is dedicated to this end.

We take it as self-evident that:
1. If all human beings can have material security then all human beings should have material security
2. If any human being can help another human being to have material security then that human being should help another human being to have material security
3. If any human being can help another human being to have material security then that human being should help as priority, to the best of their abilities, without being compelled to compromise their own material security.
……

Twenty two thousand children die every day because of poverty on this planet. Such a degree of suffering would be deemed monstrous if it existed within our own societies at even a fraction of the size. Yet, whilst one third of all food produced worldwide is wasted, whilst we overeat and get overweight, whilst we complain and return our unsatisfactory food, we allow poverty to kill over eight million children every single year.

This is not just immoral, and this is not just crazy… this is something so much more - a wretched illness at the heart of our species that does not reflect our true nature nor our deepest desires, and that requires not just the radical transformation of our societies, ideologies and systems, but of each individual human heart and mind. The Enough movement will be dedicated to this end.

Ending the struggle for survival will not be a simple or easy task. But it is possible, it is the right thing to do, and so it is what we must do. It might be that - like all great social movements - it takes multiple generations to accomplish. However, of one thing, we can be certain, and that is that, if we do not at least start then it can never be accomplished.

This is the start, and, as tremendous as the task ahead of us is, because it has been started, it will be accomplished. For this vision is simply too universal and too desirable for humanity to now not eventually make it so. How and when it will be achieved will be determined by the perseverance, diligence and integrity of those who care and of those who engage with and contribute to this movement, and to all like it.

The first step is simple…

If you agree with this vision then share it. Even better, think about it and discuss it.

Think about and discuss what the implications of the struggle for survival have been for the human race. From crime to greed to poverty to war. Think about how much of the suffering humans have experienced is rooted in the struggle for survival.

Think about and discuss what kind of world we could have if all human beings lived in material security. From freedom from suffering to unleashed human potential to more harmonious, peaceful human relations. Think about how your life could be improved if you had all that you need.

Think about and discuss what ‘material security’ means. From nourishment to shelter to medicine to education to peace. Think about what it means to live in ‘material security’.

Think about and discuss how we can achieve material security for all human beings. From social projects to technological innovation to non-violent campaigns to philosophical development. Think about and discuss how, from this starting point, we can begin the journey towards ending poverty, environmental destruction, war, corruption and injustice in the world, such that all human beings live in material security.

Think about and discuss what you need to do in your life to make the biggest contribution possible to this movement. From personal development to sacrifices to the development of ideas to further education. Think about what you need to do and who you need to be to perform an effective role in achieving material security for all human beings.

Think about and discuss how you can help this movement to succeed. From your time and energy to resources to ideas to skills and experiences. Think about what you can do to help us to become an effective movement that ends the struggle for survival.

Let’s create a universal epiphany…

We no longer need struggle to survive… everyone can have all that they need… this we can achieve… this we will achieve… together… for all.

 

[Mr D]

May help to reduce your essay into a few points. Perhaps a summary with the full document available elsewhere for anyone wanting to spend the time reading it?

 

[mindatrisk]

May help to reduce your essay into a few points. Perhaps a summary with the full document available elsewhere for anyone wanting to spend the time reading it?

I did try and get this down to 140 characters, but I just felt there was something lacking, you know?

Yeah you might well be right. The funny thing is, is that this was supposed to be just that. I am also writing a manifesto, and so far it's up to about 20,000 words (all in draft), and I felt I needed something a bit snappier, hence this. Alas, the snap needs more snap! I'll see what I can do. Thank you!

 

[OMGVape]

Didn’t Lenin have similar ideas ?

First step should be to ban all religion, and because that would be impossible, I’m out.

 

[mindatrisk]

How about...

Why are we struggling to survive if we no longer need to?

An Introduction to the ‘Enough’ movement

Humanity now has the means, the resources, and the collective will for all human beings to live in material security… no one, no longer need struggle to survive. Through our technological and social development, we are now able to ensure that every human being on this planet has the food, water, shelter, medicine, safety, and education, not just to survive, but to thrive too.

It is self-evident that, if all human beings can have material security then all human being should, and that if any human being can help another human being to have material security then they should help, as a priority, to the best of their ability, without being compelled to compromise their own material security.

Twenty two thousand children die every day because of poverty on this planet whilst one third of all food produced worldwide is wasted. This is not just crazy and immoral, but something so much more - a wretched illness at the heart of our species that no-one can justify, and that requires a radical transformation, not just of our societies, but of ourselves.

Ending the struggle for survival will not be a simple or easy task, but it is possible, it is right, and so it is what we must do. If we start then it will be accomplished, for this vision is too universal and too desirable for humanity to not make it so. How and when will be determined only by the perseverance, courage and integrity of those who help.

The first step is simple…

If you agree with this vision then share it. Even better, think about it and discuss it.

Think about and discuss what the implications of the struggle for survival have been for the human race. From crime to greed, from poverty to war.

Think about and discuss what kind of world we could have if all human beings lived in material security. From reduced suffering to unleashed human potential, and more harmonious, peaceful human relations.

Think about and discuss what ‘material security’ means. From nourishment to shelter, from medicine to education.

Think about and discuss how we can achieve material security for all human beings. From social projects to technological innovation, from non-violent campaigns to philosophical development.

Think about and discuss what you need to do in your life to make the biggest contribution possible to this movement. From personal development to developing projects, from the development of ideas to further education.

Think about and discuss how you can help this movement to succeed. From your time and energy to resources, from ideas to skills and experiences.

Let’s create a universal epiphany…

We no longer need struggle to survive… everyone can have all that they need… this we can achieve… this we will achieve… together… for all.

 

[fisicx]

Yup, sounds just like the communist manifesto.

 

[mindatrisk]

Yup, sounds just like the communist manifesto.

Actually, I received a copy of the communist manifesto earlier this year. I started to read it but got bored. I found it outdated and somewhat off the mark. I actually don't believe that there is any political system that can address the problem I outlined. What is needed is a fundamental change / growth in human thinking and attitudes. I'm not a socialist, i'm not a communist... I simply believe that if it is possible that 8 million children can not die in poverty each year then it should be so. Is that so disagreeable?

 

[Mr D]

Actually, I received a copy of the communist manifesto earlier this year. I started to read it but got bored. I found it outdated and somewhat off the mark. I actually don't believe that there is any political system that can address the problem I outlined. What is needed is a fundamental change / growth in human thinking and attitudes. I'm not a socialist, i'm not a communist... I simply believe that if it is possible that 8 million children can not die in poverty each year then it should be so. Is that so disagreeable?

In other words a new political system.

Or can use the successes of one that has got so many millions out of poverty and improved the lives of billions.
Much to the annoyance of some of the socialists.

 

[mindatrisk]

In other words a new political system.

Or can use the successes of one that has got so many millions out of poverty and improved the lives of billions.
Much to the annoyance of some of the socialists.

To be honest, I really don't know how this vision will be achieved. I just believe that between the seven billion minds on this planet that we can find a way. So, yes, that could include a new political system, but that isn't really in my thinking. With regards western civilisation, I would be happy for capitalism to continue if a universal basic income were introduced, and if capitalism is ethical, i.e. concerned for the well-being of the workforce and the environment. Capitalism has done marvellous things for humanity, but I do think it has peaked, and I do think it has limitations. I'm not sure how long it would take for capitalism to bring all human beings into material security... probably quite a long time. From my perspective, if that process can be sped up and we can reduce the eight million children dying in poverty each year then that is the right thing to do. In my plans, that will be achieved through a mixture of social initiatives, human development, and campaigning / activism. Also, consider that 'material security for all human beings' includes respect for those with very different ideas. Not everyone thinks like me, and that is okay. We can find a middle ground, I am sure.

 

[Mr D]

To be honest, I really don't know how this vision will be achieved. I just believe that between the seven billion minds on this planet that we can find a way. So, yes, that could include a new political system, but that isn't really in my thinking. With regards western civilisation, I would be happy for capitalism to continue if a universal basic income were introduced, and if capitalism is ethical, i.e. concerned for the well-being of the workforce and the environment. Capitalism has done marvellous things for humanity, but I do think it has peaked, and I do think it has limitations. I'm not sure how long it would take for capitalism to bring all human beings into material security... probably quite a long time. From my perspective, if that process can be sped up and we can reduce the eight million children dying in poverty each year then that is the right thing to do. In my plans, that will be achieved through a mixture of social initiatives, human development, and campaigning / activism. Also, consider that 'material security for all human beings' includes respect for those with very different ideas. Not everyone thinks like me, and that is okay. We can find a middle ground, I am sure.

Unfortunately some of those who will disagree with you will attack you.
People cannot always have their own status quo (not the band) threatened. Whatever system they use.

People can be ethical. Doesn't mean they are nice or that more kids will be helped.
The ethics you or I follow may be closer to each other than to the ethics the 11/9 terrorists had.
Or the ethics the current UK political party leaders have. 7 billion people and they'll follow or ignore different ethics.

People with ideas change the world. I wish you luck, my ambitions are somewhat smaller.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
― Margaret Mead

 

[mindatrisk]

Unfortunately some of those who will disagree with you will attack you.
People cannot always have their own status quo (not the band) threatened. Whatever system they use.

People can be ethical. Doesn't mean they are nice or that more kids will be helped.
The ethics you or I follow may be closer to each other than to the ethics the 11/9 terrorists had.
Or the ethics the current UK political party leaders have. 7 billion people and they'll follow or ignore different ethics.

People with ideas change the world. I wish you luck, my ambitions are somewhat smaller.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
― Margaret Mead

Actually, strategically speaking, it is very helpful to be attacked, so long as your response serves to create a distinct contrast between your ethics and those of the attacker. This is the reason that Gandhi, MLK and Mandela enjoyed such success... because they were attacked, but in responding with decency, they made their attackers look even worse... even to the degree where the moral failings of the attacker became apparent to the attacker themselves and initiated a transformation in them. Anyway, thank you for your good wishes, and your engagement. It's been very helpful. Best of luck with your smaller ambitions!

 

[Clinton]

@mindatrisk , you have my full support.

You may not succeed, those are ambitious goals, but as the old saying goes, "The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do".

It is self-evident that, if all human beings can have material security then all human being should

That is something people could argue against. It is self-evident to you, it is not a natural truth. Align yourself with facts rather than opinions and people are more likely to buy into your mission.

Twenty two thousand children die every day because of poverty on this planet whilst one third of all food produced worldwide is wasted. This is not just crazy and immoral, but something so much more - a wretched illness at the heart of our species that no-one can justify, and that requires a radical transformation, not just of our societies, but of ourselves.

Modification required. Too emotional. What's in it for me? Why is every individual on this planet poorer as a result of this huge human waste? Don't blame me for not lifting a finger to help, but point out why it's in my own self-interest to do so. Explain how I can feel righteous by clicking a couple of buttons to channel that food to the 22,000 children who are dying daily.

Think about and discuss how, from this starting point, we can begin the journey towards ending poverty, environmental destruction, war, corruption and injustice in the world, such that all human beings live in material security.

That makes the mission look impossible. I'd keep the ending poverty (described properly), but not the ending of injustice. You can't end injustice (or people's perception that something is not just). Every loser of a court battle walks away thinking he's been denied justice! Similarly corruption. There is no universal definition of corruption. Corruption is subjective and easily skewed by cultural, moral and other considerations.

 

[Newchodge]

While I support the concept you are starting from a misconception, which is that all people are inherently good. Even if 99% of people would support this outcome, the 1% would find a way into making it profitable for themselves, completely destabilising the project.

There is also a slightly deeper problem. Currently 22,000 children die from poverty, therefore avoidable deaths. Presumably a number of adults also die from similar causes, but let's just stick with the children. If those avoidable deaths are avoided, there will be an additional 8 million people odd surviving each year. They will be surviving, by definition, in societies that are impoverished and cannot sustain such an increase in numbers without additional support.

It has been shown that the poorest societies tend to have large numbers of children, possibly so that at least some will survive. The tendency to large families eventually reduces when their is economic security, but the change takes a considerable time. so those surviving 8 million children will eventually generate perhaps 8 children each (although as approx half will be men, perhaps we should average as 4). This means an ever-increasing population which will eventually overwhelm the planet.

While I do not, for one moment, advocate poverty, or war, as a means of population control, it is an issue you need to be aware of.

 

[mindatrisk]

Arhh this is good stuff. Reading this was like cutting into a juicy lab grown vegan steak. Thank you.

You may not succeed, those are ambitious goals, but as the old saying goes, "The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do".

Indeed. I suspect (but kind of hope not) that my efforts will be akin to the pioneers against slavery, equal rights etc. In the sense that, the vision is too big to be achieved in my lifetime, but in sewing the seeds, I’m at least contributing to the chance that one day this vision will be fulfilled. But I will act as if it is achievable now.

That is something people could argue against. It is self-evident to you, it is not a natural truth. Align yourself with facts rather than opinions and people are more likely to buy into your mission.

This is an interesting point that I didn’t expect to be made. I find it hard to imagine people arguing for poverty. In fact, this central argument of my vision was carefully crafted so as to make opposition - if not impossible, but difficult and undesirable. After all, even if some people think that poverty is okay, I imagine them being reluctant to say so, lest they be perceived a monster. I’d be interested to hear you expand your thoughts on this point.

Modification required. Too emotional. What's in it for me? Why is every individual on this planet poorer as a result of this huge human waste? Don't blame me for not lifting a finger to help, but point out why it's in my own self-interest to do so. Explain how I can feel righteous by clicking a couple of buttons to channel that food to the 22,000 children who are dying daily.

Please excuse me here but I’m going to copy and paste something I wrote elsewhere that I think will address your point here…

‘What I propose is a middle way... a compromise. There are some people who are happy to have just enough to survive comfortably so that they can devote their time to what they are passionate about and interested in. This would describe me. I need approximately £650 per month to live (actually £340 at the moment if anyone fancies chipping in!). If I had this then I would dedicate all my time to the development of this vision. There are also others... artists, scientists, philosophers, and the socially concerned like myself, who would, for the most part, be content to have just enough to live on if it meant that they could devote their time to their pursuits. For the most part, this is how all of these individuals have lived throughout history. Vincent Van Gogh and Nicolas Tesla both died penniless, and, I presume, struggled for their material security throughout their lives. But it didn't stop or inhibit them from pursuing what they loved. Nor did either give up what they loved for another path that would make them money. Individuals like this contribute to humanity as much as wealth creators do - and it could be argued that they contribute more. I think we would all enjoy a better world if these individuals had a secure platform of material security from which they could freely nurture and express their interests and talents. After all, it is only the very richest who can now afford a Van Gogh piece... would it not be in the best interests of the rich to have more quality art, science, philosophy etc. to be able to purchase? Is not the whole purpose of wealth to be able to afford these things for the enjoyment they give? In the West, at least, this material security could be afforded these individuals through the introduction of a universal basic income.

As to the more capitalist minded... Well, their role be that of the wealth creators - the ones who fund the artists and scientists, who benefit most from the artists and scientists, and who get to keep most of their wealth. In other words, just as it is now. Of course, i'd like to see a regulated capitalism become I don't think it is right to exploit people nor endanger the environment simply to make money. But by and large, I see no problem with those motivated by money to continue to make money and to enjoy a more materialistic lifestyle. I think this is a very reasonable compromise that benefits all sides. Personally, I am wasted performing a capitalist role. I do not care for making more money than I need, I will never be a great wealth generator, but I have a deep passion for the well-being of human beings, and enough good ideas to make something of a difference... not just for those in need, but for everyone.’

That makes the mission look impossible. I'd keep the ending poverty (described properly), but not the ending of injustice. You can't end injustice (or people's perception that something is not just). Every loser of a court battle walks away thinking he's been denied justice! Similarly corruption. There is no universal definition of corruption. Corruption is subjective and easily skewed by cultural, moral and other considerations.

Very good points on justice and corruption. I don’t think the mission is impossible because, ultimately, when I’ve clarified my thinking and developed plans, it will be broken down into clear objectives, such as, campaigning for a universal basic income, the redistribution of waste food to those in need, and so on. I have no truck with endless philosophising. This movement will be based on action.

 

[mindatrisk]

While I support the concept you are starting from a misconception, which is that all people are inherently good. Even if 99% of people would support this outcome, the 1% would find a way into making it profitable for themselves, completely destabilising the project.

There is also a slightly deeper problem. Currently 22,000 children die from poverty, therefore avoidable deaths. Presumably a number of adults also die from similar causes, but let's just stick with the children. If those avoidable deaths are avoided, there will be an additional 8 million people odd surviving each year. They will be surviving, by definition, in societies that are impoverished and cannot sustain such an increase in numbers without additional support.

It has been shown that the poorest societies tend to have large numbers of children, possibly so that at least some will survive. The tendency to large families eventually reduces when their is economic security, but the change takes a considerable time. so those surviving 8 million children will eventually generate perhaps 8 children each (although as approx half will be men, perhaps we should average as 4). This means an ever-increasing population which will eventually overwhelm the planet.

While I do not, for one moment, advocate poverty, or war, as a means of population control, it is an issue you need to be aware of.

More great points. I really appreciate everyone's engaging with this. I'm receiving exactly the kind of food for thought that I was hoping for and need.

I actually do believe in the inherent goodness of human beings, albeit, I am not so naïve as to believe that everyone will act on this goodness in their lifetime, so this is a very valid point, and one that was considered when crafting this vision. A few years ago it started with a plan to 'fight the banks', and then it developed into fighting austerity, and then to fighting capitalism, and so on. And all these 'fights' had their merits. But from a strategic point of view (with the goal being to achieve as much success as is possible in the shortest amount of time) I realised that all of these battles are contentious, divisive, and come with a ready army of literally millions upon millions of opponents (including governments), who are intelligent, dedicated and well resourced, to counter me. And so I set about finding a vision that can't really be opposed. Of course, people will try. But even if some people are happy for millions of children to starve, no-one can say this openly without looking like a monster. Most people will at least have to pay lip service to this vision, and, if intending to counter it, find indirect ways to do so. It's not going to stop opposition, but it's going to limit their effectivity to a large degree.

As for over-population... I agree that it's something that needs to be considered but at the moment I do not know enough about the issue to comment. I'd be interested I knowing the facts, arguments etc. for controlled population. My instinctive feeling would be that it is possible to accommodate more people on this planet given certain developments (reduced food waste, for example).

 

[Mr D]

Perhaps not so much arguing in favour of poverty as arguing about how to get people out of poverty.
Chucking money at a country doesn't appear to do much. Messing with their economy does all sorts of damage. There are those in favour of those efforts.

For instance supermarkets. Lots can be said about what happens when a supermarket comes in and how it impacts local jobs. We have enough media reports and locals protesting here in the UK.
Usually missing out how it impacts food prices for the customers or the efficiency of the supply chain.

Say Tesco decided to set up in a developing region. Buy from farmers, sort produce and ship it chilled / quickly to stores. Can cut out multiple parts of supply chain, impacting jobs and pricing. Cuts out delivery to end customer delays. Fresher produce.
Some would argue against Tesco, some would be in favour. The issue is the poor people buying the stuff but they may well be ignored by the two sides.

Times that one single solution by a thousand times in an area and there can be considerable disagreement affecting poverty that in reality is over means and methods, not whether Elise can afford to feed her grandchildren without starving herself.

 

[mindatrisk]

Perhaps not so much arguing in favour of poverty as arguing about how to get people out of poverty.
Chucking money at a country doesn't appear to do much. Messing with their economy does all sorts of damage. There are those in favour of those efforts.

For instance supermarkets. Lots can be said about what happens when a supermarket comes in and how it impacts local jobs. We have enough media reports and locals protesting here in the UK.
Usually missing out how it impacts food prices for the customers or the efficiency of the supply chain.

Say Tesco decided to set up in a developing region. Buy from farmers, sort produce and ship it chilled / quickly to stores. Can cut out multiple parts of supply chain, impacting jobs and pricing. Cuts out delivery to end customer delays. Fresher produce.
Some would argue against Tesco, some would be in favour. The issue is the poor people buying the stuff but they may well be ignored by the two sides.

Times that one single solution by a thousand times in an area and there can be considerable disagreement affecting poverty that in reality is over means and methods, not whether Elise can afford to feed her grandchildren without starving herself.

I see you what mean. Again, I'm sure you appreciate that there is so much involved within the scope of this vision that it would be impossible for me to understand, let alone offer solutions to, all the challenges and obstacles present. What I can do is emphasise that this vision can only be achieved through a collective effort on the understanding that between the seven billions minds on the planet, most problems can be solved. I'd also add that if there was a concerted effort - as concerted as, say, is put into a war, including comparable funds and resources - that these problems would probably quite easily be overcome. The fact is that a very small percentage of all human activity and thinking is put into these issues, none of which seem beyond the scope of human accomplishment with a bit more effort.

 

[fisicx]

Poverty is relative. You can survive in Vietnam on $2/day. Whilst they are not material secure they are alive and earning a wage. How would you define material secure? At what point does a person become secure? Is this security the same in every country? Are these children dying because of material insecurity or because they society in which they live corrupt? Your arguments need a lot more fleshing out to define the terms you use and how they can be applied to every person.

Would personally give up everything that makes you feel secure to help a child in another country?

 

[mindatrisk]

Poverty is relative. You can survive in Vietnam on $2/day. Whilst they are not material secure they are alive and earning a wage. How would you define material secure? At what point does a person become secure? Is this security the same in every country? Are these children dying because of material insecurity or because they society in which they live corrupt? Your arguments need a lot more fleshing out to define the terms you use and how they can be applied to every person.

Would personally give up everything that makes you feel secure to help a child in another country?

More great questions.

First of all, there can be no future for this vision if there is an expectation that anyone put themselves in an insecure position, and that is outlined in no.3 of 'what we take as self-evident'. There is enough excess wealth in the world without anyone else needing to be made to struggle or struggle further.

I definitely don't think it is for me to define what material security is to other people. As you pointed out, there are too many variables to consider. Most people have a decent enough understanding of what income they need. For me it is about £650-700 per month, and so that for me is material security.

 

[Newchodge]

More great questions.

First of all, there can be no future for this vision if there is an expectation that anyone put themselves in an insecure position, and that is outlined in no.3 of 'what we take as self-evident'. There is enough excess wealth in the world without anyone else needing to be made to struggle or struggle further.

I definitely don't think it is for me to define what material security is to other people. As you pointed out, there are too many variables to consider. Most people have a decent enough understanding of what income they need. For me it is about £650-700 per month, and so that for me is material security.

Presumably you are living rent free?

 

[mindatrisk]

Presumably you are living rent free?

No, my rent is £380 per month (including bills). I live in the north-east UK.

 

[Newchodge]

So do I. £380 per month including bills? Council tax, water, gas and elecricity?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

A big issue with this kind of thing is what "wealth" is.

There's this idea that individuals own billions of pounds or dollars that are hidden away, thereby sucking wealth out of the system that could be available for others.

In reality, that's quite rare. In fact, only a fraction of very wealthy people have that kind of money just sitting around.

Much of the world's wealth comes from assets that are given a value because other people want to buy those assets. Take Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon who is worth over $160 billion.

That's not money. That's not even direct physical assets. The vast majority is based on the value of the share of Amazon he owns. He's worth $160 billion because people are prepared to pay $160 billion for his slice of Amazon. That's it. They haven't done that. It's just known that they would if there was an opportunity.

What happens if everyone suddenly decides they don't want to buy those shares? They drop to zero, and he loses almost all of his wealth.

In fact, he couldn't realistically ever turn that stock value into money, because trying to sell all those shares would dump the price. It's basically impossible to sell them for that current value.

The current estimated value of the US stock market is $30 trillion. If no one wants to buy those stocks, the US stock market will be worth zero. $30 trillion of "wealth" will vanish into thin air. Something similar would happen if others couldn't afford to buy those stocks, either.

Then you have things like derivatives. They are worth hundreds of trillions, but again, this value is based on what others are prepared to pay, or the "value" of an underlying asset. You can't spend these when you go shopping.

The current estimate for all the world's cash wealth is about $80 trillion. Seems like a lot, but when you split it between every man, woman and child on earth, it's about $11,000 each.

When it comes to lifting everyone out of poverty and giving them a comfortable home with food and healthcare, it makes you wonder if there are actually enough resources on the planet to do that.

 

[mindatrisk]

So do I. £380 per month including bills? Council tax, water, gas and elecricity?

Yes, everything. I live in Hartlepool town centre. Tis rough, henceforth, tis cheap.

 

[mindatrisk]

A big issue with this kind of thing is what "wealth" is.

There's this idea that individuals own billions of pounds or dollars that are hidden away, thereby sucking wealth out of the system that could be available for others.

In reality, that's quite rare. In fact, only a fraction of very wealthy people have that kind of money just sitting around.

Much of the world's wealth comes from assets that are given a value because other people want to buy those assets. Take Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon who is worth over $160 billion.

That's not money. That's not even direct physical assets. The vast majority is based on the value of the share of Amazon he owns. He's worth $160 billion because people are prepared to pay $160 billion for his slice of Amazon. That's it. They haven't done that. It's just known that they would if there was an opportunity.

What happens if everyone suddenly decides they don't want to buy those shares? They drop to zero, and he loses almost all of his wealth.

In fact, he couldn't realistically ever turn that stock value into money, because trying to sell all those shares would dump the price. It's basically impossible to sell them for that current value.

The current estimated value of the US stock market is $30 trillion. If no one wants to buy those stocks, the US stock market will be worth zero. $30 trillion of "wealth" will vanish into thin air. Something similar would happen if others couldn't afford to buy those stocks, either.

Then you have things like derivatives. They are worth hundreds of trillions, but again, this value is based on what others are prepared to pay, or the "value" of an underlying asset. You can't spend these when you go shopping.

The current estimate for all the world's cash wealth is about $80 trillion. Seems like a lot, but when you split it between every man, woman and child on earth, it's about $11,000 each.

When it comes to lifting everyone out of poverty and giving them a comfortable home with food and healthcare, it makes you wonder if there are actually enough resources on the planet to do that.

Very interesting. But what then about things like tax havens? A few years ago there were reports of $21 trillion dollars being held in off-short tax havens. What kind of money is this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

 

[Mr D]

A big issue with this kind of thing is what "wealth" is.

There's this idea that individuals own billions of pounds or dollars that are hidden away, thereby sucking wealth out of the system that could be available for others.

In reality, that's quite rare. In fact, only a fraction of very wealthy people have that kind of money just sitting around.

Much of the world's wealth comes from assets that are given a value because other people want to buy those assets. Take Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon who is worth over $160 billion.

That's not money. That's not even direct physical assets. The vast majority is based on the value of the share of Amazon he owns. He's worth $160 billion because people are prepared to pay $160 billion for his slice of Amazon. That's it. They haven't done that. It's just known that they would if there was an opportunity.

What happens if everyone suddenly decides they don't want to buy those shares? They drop to zero, and he loses almost all of his wealth.

In fact, he couldn't realistically ever turn that stock value into money, because trying to sell all those shares would dump the price. It's basically impossible to sell them for that current value.

The current estimated value of the US stock market is $30 trillion. If no one wants to buy those stocks, the US stock market will be worth zero. $30 trillion of "wealth" will vanish into thin air. Something similar would happen if others couldn't afford to buy those stocks, either.

Then you have things like derivatives. They are worth hundreds of trillions, but again, this value is based on what others are prepared to pay, or the "value" of an underlying asset. You can't spend these when you go shopping.

The current estimate for all the world's cash wealth is about $80 trillion. Seems like a lot, but when you split it between every man, woman and child on earth, it's about $11,000 each.

When it comes to lifting everyone out of poverty and giving them a comfortable home with food and healthcare, it makes you wonder if there are actually enough resources on the planet to do that.

Fire sale of physical assets would fetch effectively zero if everyone did it.

I did read something a while back that referred to the richest couple of dozen people in the world. If they could dispose of their wealth at listed prices and gave all the money away we'd all get about 30 dollars.

The same country has both the richest man and the poorest man in the world in it. When people think of wealth they think of Jeff Bezos, when they think of poor they think of some beggar who doesn't have an income. They don't think of the poor who owe thousands (who are poorer), or those who owe millions (poorer still).

 

[Mr D]

Very interesting. But what then about things like tax havens? A few years ago there were reports of $21 trillion dollars being held in off-short tax havens. What kind of money is this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

The tax havens don't just stick the money under the bed. A chunk of it has already had tax deducted as earnings - its post tax - just don't want more tax deducted from its capacity to earn money.
The money is used to make more money. Buy property in London. Invest in shops to rent out. Build a private motorway.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Fire sale of physical assets would fetch effectively zero if everyone did it.

I did read something a while back that referred to the richest couple of dozen people in the world. If they could dispose of their wealth at listed prices and gave all the money away we'd all get about 30 dollars.

Absolutely. Even if $21 trillion was found and dished out it would be about $3000 per person. Not annual. Just a one-time lump sum.

Then available resources would become a concern. Let's say all the poorest people on earth suddenly got $10,000. Their first thought is to rush to stock up on food from local sources. However, there will be nowhere near enough food readily available to give everyone what they want. Then the bidding starts. People offer to pay more than others. And before you know it, people are paying x10, x20 or even x30 more for the food than they were before. Possibly hundreds of times more.

The same goes for everything else. Want to build a house? Good luck getting the wood and other materials when everyone within 100 miles of you is trying to do the same thing and are prepared to outbid you for it.

Economics is messy. And in places with poorer rule of law, a sudden windfall for every citizen without adequate supply could quickly descend into war. Building people out of poverty is a long, arduous grind fraught with difficulties. It's not so much the money itself. It's what you do with it.

 

[Mr D]

Absolutely. Even if $21 trillion was found and dished out it would be about $3000 per person. Not annual. Just a one-time lump sum.

Then available resources would become a concern. Let's say all the poorest people on earth suddenly got $10,000. Their first thought is to rush to stock up on food from local sources. However, there will be nowhere near enough food readily available to give everyone what they want. Then the bidding starts. People offer to pay more than others. And before you know it, people are paying x10, x20 or even x30 more for the food than they were before. Possibly hundreds of times more.

The same goes for everything else. Want to build a house? Good luck getting the wood and other materials when everyone within 100 miles of you is trying to do the same thing and are prepared to outbid you for it.

Economics is messy. And in places with poorer rule of law, a sudden windfall for every citizen without adequate supply could quickly descend into war. Building people out of poverty is a long, arduous grind fraught with difficulties. It's not so much the money itself. It's what you do with it.

Add in interference in economics. For instance disaster, famine etc.
Bring in free supplies from elsewhere great - except the local businesses that could sell now cannot. Farmers relying on selling some food suddenly cannot do so as its available free months after the famine started from outside sources. Just when his crop is ready to sell.
Farmer goes bankrupt and loses the farm, no one else wants it. Left to grow weeds until the bank can offload it.

There are often easy answer to major problems. What people often miss are the problems those answers cause. Reality is often complicated and a solution that sounds great on TV may create the very same problem later on a bigger scale.
For most major problems there are easy answers that are …. bad. In one way or another.

 

[dan19900]

Go and live in a poor country and you'll see why things like this don't work. I live in the Philippines, all the politicians are corrupt, any that aren't corrupt enough get shot or grassed up for something minor as they make the others paranoid.
Most of the poor people are lazy, when one of their family works overseas they send half their money home, rest of the family aren't going to go and work for $6 per day when their sibling is sending them $500+ per month for nothing.
Give them a few k each then most will just quit their jobs.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

There are often easy answer to major problems. What people often miss are the problems those answers cause. Reality is often complicated and a solution that sounds great on TV may create the very same problem later on a bigger scale.
For most major problems there are easy answers that are …. bad. In one way or another.

Sounds like a certain political issue going on right now...

 

[mindatrisk]

There's been a few replies regarding the same few points so excuse me for not replying individually.

I'm not an economist, so let's say that we found ourselves in a situation where a large amount of money became available to tackle poverty... There's no reason why we'd make bad choices. Given the sincerity and qualification of those involved, then surely they'd be aware of the above problems outlined, and surely they'd have the capacity to find and develop effective solutions? Why would we have to redistribute / help in a way that is ineffective and counter-productive as if we don't understand these issues, can't understand these issues, can't come up with effective plans? I have more faith in human beings than this! At least where there is honesty and sincerity. If you are all aware of these problems then i'm sure that those tasked with such a responsibility would be too, and would be capable of overcoming them. Also, the available wealth now might translate to only a relatively small amount each at the moment (£11,000), but wouldn't that money be creating further wealth creators?

 

[mindatrisk]

The tax havens don't just stick the money under the bed. A chunk of it has already had tax deducted as earnings - its post tax - just don't want more tax deducted from its capacity to earn money.
The money is used to make more money. Buy property in London. Invest in shops to rent out. Build a private motorway.

Is this $21 trillion technically spendable though? Because Oxfam estimated that it would $50 billion per year for 3 years to end poverty worldwide (I presume that isn't them just handing out a portion if that money to everyone), which is less than 1 percent of that $21 trillion. I understand that people have worked for that money, but sharing - not taxing, not forcedly redistributing - less than 1% of that wealth and ending all poverty worldwide doesn't seem unreasonable at all. I mean, that is so eminently do-able and reasonable, with such little sacrifice made by so few and with such tremendous benefit had by so many. This really is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. This is just a choice.

 

[Mr D]

Is this $21 trillion technically spendable though? Because Oxfam estimated that it would $50 billion per year for 3 years to end poverty worldwide (I presume that isn't them just handing out a portion if that money to everyone), which is less than 1 percent of that $21 trillion. I understand that people have worked for that money, but sharing - not taxing, not forcedly redistributing - less than 1% of that wealth and ending all poverty worldwide doesn't seem unreasonable at all. I mean, that is so eminently do-able and reasonable, with such little sacrifice made by so few and with such tremendous benefit had by so many. This really is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. This is just a choice.

Yes it's spendable if it's cash.
It belongs to other people though. Used for pensions, dividends, purchasing assets etc.

As for Oxfam they are known to get maths wrong. Always check the figures and the ideology they use.

50 billion? check how much is spent by charities per year. Worldwide.
Oxfam are good at coming up with ways to spend other people's money. Not so good at spending their own it appears.

 

[mindatrisk]

Yes it's spendable if it's cash.
It belongs to other people though. Used for pensions, dividends, purchasing assets etc.

As for Oxfam they are known to get maths wrong. Always check the figures and the ideology they use.

50 billion? check how much is spent by charities per year. Worldwide.
Oxfam are good at coming up with ways to spend other people's money. Not so good at spending their own it appears.

Indeed. I don't have much faith in charities. My point was more that this is possible. Even if their sums are a long way out then it is still a fraction of the wealth that exists. No ones lifestyle is going to be harmed by sharing a small percentage of immense wealth. But it will have to be volunteered. It will have to come from the heart because they agree and wish to share. This is the only moral and strategically sensible approach to take.

 

[Mr D]

Indeed. I don't have much faith in charities. My point was more that this is possible. Even if their sums are a long way out then it is still a fraction of the wealth that exists. No ones lifestyle is going to be harmed by sharing a small percentage of immense wealth. But it will have to be volunteered. It will have to come from the heart because they agree and wish to share. This is the only moral and strategically sensible approach to take.

Then convince the people already giving to give that money.
UK government spends about £14 billion on overseas aid - that's 28% of the Oxfam target straight away, add a few more countries and sorted.

Unless their figures are wrong or the problem isn't as they present it.

 

[Newchodge]

I think, given that we are allowing millions of children to live in poverty in this country (although for most it is not the killing level of poverty) and have allowed over 100,000 people (many of whom were disabled) to die as a result of reductions in the government support they receive, your view of humanity may not be right.

 

[Mr D]

I think, given that we are allowing millions of children to live in poverty in this country (although for most it is not the killing level of poverty) and have allowed over 100,000 people (many of whom were disabled) to die as a result of reductions in the government support they receive, your view of humanity may not be right.

Relative poverty is indeed different from absolute poverty.

However its worth questioning groups who claim a figure for people who have died to establish how many died of the cause they claim.
Plenty of groups don't do the research and simply claim 100% of those who have died. With a dozen groups claiming that the figure is 1200% of those who died and its meaningless.
Knock off those who would normally be expected to die in a particular time and whats left can be claimed by a particular group as being caused by the problem they refer to.

Even Stafford Hospital couldn't claim credit for every death. Just some of the avoidable ones.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Indeed. I don't have much faith in charities. My point was more that this is possible. Even if their sums are a long way out then it is still a fraction of the wealth that exists. No ones lifestyle is going to be harmed by sharing a small percentage of immense wealth. But it will have to be volunteered. It will have to come from the heart because they agree and wish to share. This is the only moral and strategically sensible approach to take.

Is it possible, though?

I fail to see how Oxfam's figures add up. Such an amount is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the 3 billion people currently experiencing some level of poverty. Perhaps they're referring only to food poverty, but even then, it's a stretch.

Considering the cost, scale and complexity of giving everyone on earth a comfortable life, I think those with wealth, of any level, would have to share far more than a small percentage.

Remember that all the world's traditional money, evenly distributed to each man, woman and child, would be about $11,000. That's total. Even if it wasn't given directly to the person, it would be $11,000 per head to build a comfortable place to live, better food/consumable supplies, healthcare infrastructure and education systems - many of which would be in some of the most remote places on the planet. There would also be the cost of basic services such as sanitation, policing, fire services and all the rest.

And on top of that, the "good people" can't just waltz into every country and ensure things are done fairly and efficiently. There has to be trust, but corruption is rife around the world with many instances of charitable funds not going where they're supposed to.

For truly even wealth distribution, you'd end up on an awful lot less than that £650 per month you claim is enough to live on. And while I'm sure that would lift billions out of extreme poverty, it would still be miles away from everyone having comfortable, safe, clean places to live with quality healthcare and education. Meanwhile, it would probably create poverty for billions more elsewhere, albeit not as severe.

Progress is being made. In 1990, 35% of the world population lived on less than $1.90 per day. That's now down to around 10%. But countries need the foundations in place to naturally grow economies, and this can take not just decades, but centuries. Time will tell how it all plays out.

 

[Mr D]

Progress is being made. In 1990, 35% of the world population lived on less than $1.90 per day. That's now down to around 10%. But countries need the foundations in place to naturally grow economies, and this can take not just decades, but centuries. Time will tell how it all plays out.

Not helped by the insistence of some that the countries not follow the same path that others did to reach that economic growth.
A country with a load of coal can think it needs a bunch of coal power stations, except when the greens disagree.
Can't quite see Chad switching over to tidal power....