The trillion pound bailout promised by governments to bail out banks would be enough to end global extreme poverty for 50 years, charity Oxfam claims.
Who in hell just wants to prevent poverty for 50 years? Why be such a miserably unambitious piker?
Why not work to abolish this extreme poverty for ever? It´s not as if we don´t have a well thought out plan to do this, is it?
The A1 storyline is a case of rapid and successful economic development, in which regional average income per capita converge – current distinctions between "poor" and "rich" countries eventually dissolve. The primary dynamics are:
- Strong commitment to market-based solutions.
- High savings and commitment to education at the household level.
- High rates of investment and innovation in education, technology, and institutions at the national and international levels.
- International mobility of people, ideas, and technology.
Pretty much globalised capitalism, isn´t it? Let the markets rip around the world. What´s the result?
In the A1 scenario family, demographic and economic trends are closely linked, as affluence is correlated with long life and small families (low mortality and low fertility). Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100. Average age increases, with the needs of retired people met mainly through their accumulated savings in private pension systems.
The global economy expands at an average annual rate of about 3% to 2100, reaching around US$550 trillion (all dollar amounts herein are expressed in 1990 dollars, unless stated otherwise). This is approximately the same as average global growth since 1850, although the conditions that lead to this global growth in productivity and per capita incomes in the scenario are unparalleled in history. Global average income per capita reaches about US$21,000 by 2050. While the high average level of income per capita contributes to a great improvement in the overall health and social conditions of the majority of people, this world is not necessarily devoid of problems. In particular, many communities could face some of the problems of social exclusion encountered in the wealthiest countries during the 20 th century, and in many places income growth could produce increased pressure on the global commons.
The major problem seems to be social exclusion….alienation or anomie I think.
I dunno about you but I think that´s an entirely fair, if not ridiculously cheap, price to pay for the total abolition of that destitution, that dollar or two dollar a day abject poverty that still immiserates a billion or two of our fellow human beings.
So, let´s not muck about with weasely little plans to simply alleviate poverty for a few decades, let´s get on with abolishing it, shall we?
Tear down those trade walls, let capitalism and markets, red in tooth and claw, do for everyone else what they´ve done for us. Made us so stinking rich, so high on the hog of material abundance, that we actually have the leisure time to consider how it all happened and to work out how to make it happen all over again for everyone.
Oh, and, note. That well thought out plan? That´s from the IPCC that is. That´s the scientific consensus, innit?