Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

probability_of_meme t1_j29zed9 wrote

Reply to comment by AllanfromWales1 in We have all the resources we need to solve the world's greatest problems, so long as we can rise above our tribal instincts. by IAI_Admin

Not just agreement on which problems, but polar opposition on what is a problem and what isn't. I don't think it's completely surprising to imagine the wealthiest would see eliminating world hunger (in any humane way) as detrimental to their power and influence. They know very well they're better off with lots of starving people around.

2

coke_and_coffee t1_j2aawhh wrote

> They know very well they're better off with lots of starving people around.

This is reductive nonsense. You don’t need these kind of cynical conspiracy theories to explain why wealthy people want to keep their wealth. Ask yourself, why don’t you give all your wealth away to starving kids in Africa? It’s the same dynamic at play.

11

LinearOperator t1_j2buu2n wrote

This is more than a bit of a strawman. If I lose 99% of my wealth, I can't get to work, I can't have a roof over my head, and I go to join the starving because I won't be able to afford food. If we take away 99% of the wealth of a person with a single billion, they still have 10 million dollars. Think about it like this: if you made 100,000$ (which most people even in the US would consider a very good income) every year for 100 years (which would most probably cover the entire period of cradle to grave), that's 10 million dollars. That's what would be left if we took away 99% of the wealth of a person worth a single billion and there are well over 500 of these individuals in the US not to mention many who are worth tens or even HUNDREDS of billions. And these are the same people who fight tooth and nail any measure to increase taxes even the slightest. Thanks to "Citizens United", we have no idea how these people influence federal elections not to mention those like Rupert Murdock who own multinational media empires.

I don't think the rich want "starving people" around. But I'm sure they want anyone outside of their influence to have as little power as possible and people who are worried about things like food and shelter have far fewer resources to oppose them.

10

coke_and_coffee t1_j2c7g0r wrote

I’m sure you can afford $1 a day to keep a starving kid alive. Yet I’m pretty sure you don’t do that…

−5

PaxNova t1_j2b1yxg wrote

They might give more away if it didn't entail giving away control of their company.

0

AllanfromWales1 t1_j2a84jx wrote

A bit simplistic. If someone or some corporation gets rich through (for instance) selling fried chicken, they're gonna want as many people as possible to have enough money to buy their product. Starving people don't drive capitalism forward.

10

EldritchAnimation t1_j2b1cpi wrote

>They know very well they're better off with lots of starving people around.

How, precisely, is this the case?

1

StarKiller2626 t1_j2aybno wrote

That's literally the opposite of the truth. Starving people I'm just gonna say Africa for ease of analogy would be a huge market. Provide them with food and you're several billions of dollars per year richer. The problem is to provide them with food you have to make the nation's they're in safe enough, and stop the corruption to allow it to work. Which would require military intervention or insane politicking. You'd also have to make them wealthy enough to buy the food because otherwise it's just slave labor because someone has to be paid for all the work producing it which would also require dealing with the local corruption and violence.

Bottom line corporations would LOVE if everyone was well fed, well off and could buy whatever they wanted. Because it all goes into their pockets. But local govts make that practically impossible. Govts like people hungry, poor and unsecured. Because those people rely on the govts kindness and help just to survive which gives them power. Politicians are the enemy of progress, not business owners.

−4