Well put: and we need to beat them over the head with this point

Oxfam that is. And the rest of them:

Most of you reading this blog are in the top 1% sucking up all those resources – depriving the poor in Africa and elsewhere of the chance to grow, to get out of poverty.

Except you\’re not. Sit back, put a smile on you face – punch the air with joy. You and me – capitalists both – have sat getting a little richer for thirteen years while a billion folk have escaped absolute poverty. All the international trade, all those businesses and those business folk filling the posh seats in aeroplanes flitting across the world – they\’ve done that, they\’ve lifted those people out of poverty.

Oxfam are wrong. Neoliberalism is making all the world richer. Even the UN celebrates that neoliberal success:

\”For the first time since records on poverty began, the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen in every developing region, including sub-Saharan Africa. Preliminary estimates indicate that the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 per day fell in 2010 to less than half the 1990 rate…\”

This is what capitalism does. Isn\’t it wonderful.

6 comments on “Well put: and we need to beat them over the head with this point

  1. Can I get an Amen to that?

    Oxfam, by advocating to put the brakes on global economic growth in the name of global warming prevention is promoting perpetual poverty for the poor. Which is why not one cent of my top 1% income will ever find its way into its coffers. Same goes for World Vision. I ensure that a charity does not advocate on AGW before I donate.

  2. Actually, quite a bit of your income finds its way into Oxfam’s coffers, courtesy of the Department for International Development and various other UK Government bodies (£11.9 million between them), as well as the EU and the United Nations.

  3. Rather a lot of the top 1% are in China and indeed sucking up resources that belong to the poor – and they have got a lot more than 60% richer in the last twenty years. The rest of us, middle-class westerners, have failed to match the growth in income of the poor.
    @ DocBud As I have repeatedly pointed out AGW is a fact which is obscured by the bullshit spouted by the likes of Al Gore. In the last 40 years mankind has burnt 180 billion tonnes of coal and comparable amounts of oil&gas. So unless someone has waived the laws of thermodynamics, mankind has made a noticeable contribution to global warming. (Incidentally, Al Gore contributes more in an average week than my whole family does in a year).

  4. john77 – “Rather a lot of the top 1% are in China and indeed sucking up resources that belong to the poor – and they have got a lot more than 60% richer in the last twenty years.”

    I assume you are not referring to their quaint habit of taking land from farmers for housing and factories without compensation – after all, it is the People’s Land, not the farmer’s so no crime is committed. So what are you referring to?

    “As I have repeatedly pointed out AGW is a fact which is obscured by the bullshit spouted by the likes of Al Gore.”

    Point it out again because no matter how many times you say it, it does not become so. It may be a fact. But you do not and cannot know it is a fact. Even the insanely incompetent fraudulent IPCC only said it is highly likely.

    “In the last 40 years mankind has burnt 180 billion tonnes of coal and comparable amounts of oil&gas. So unless someone has waived the laws of thermodynamics, mankind has made a noticeable contribution to global warming.”

    Well no. Because the laws of thermodynamics are nice – and which ones do you think apply here by the way? – but they are not relevant. The atmosphere is not a test tube. It is a lot more complex. It may be that pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad thing for warming. On the other hand doing so may well call forth feedbacks which are negative and so will result in no change. Or even cooling. You do not know. You cannot know.

    The fact that the Earth is still here and has not had a Venus-style run away Greenhouse effect – or as far as we can tell has never had a problem with heating whatsoever at any stage since single celled organisms first learnt to poison their neighbours with oxygen – suggests that the feedbacks are indeed negative and strong.

    After all, the Earth has had repeated massive volcanic activity which would have put more CO2 into the atmosphere than we have. We are still here. The Earth has been repeatedly hit by large rocks. The one that may have caused the K-T extinction would have turned most of the world’s biomass into CO2 in the course of a single afternoon. We are still here. Can you explain that?

  5. @ SMFS
    re China – read data on the number of billionaires, millionaires etc, compare Bo Xilai’s wealth with the total of his lifetime salaries, middle-ranking officials with fortunes …
    You may not be aware that burning coal releases heat. That, when I was young and for several centuries prior to that, was the purpose of coal fires.
    So everyone except Exxon, and those unaware of the above, accepts that burning 180 billion tonnes of coal will have a warming effect. The laws of thermodynamics say that *some but not all* of this heat will leak into space. Hence the earth is warmer as a result. QED
    I categorically do not believe that this is the sole reason for the higher average temperature in the last two or three decades than early last century and my personal opinion is that it is less important than changes in solar radiation but it is ridiculous to try to deny its existence.
    If you care to read what I have written, you may note the absence of any claims that “global warming is due to CO2″. If I was using that straw man I should have ranted about the destruction of the rainforest. So you can scrap *all* of your arguments about that straw man and think about the point that I actually made.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>