In 1990, 35% of the global population lived below the extreme poverty line. After three
decades of poverty reduction, it is estimated that in 2015 less than 10% of the world
lived below this line, calibrated at $1.90 a day.
5 While it is important to celebrate this
progress, we can‟t be complacent. For the world to reach the Sustainable
Development Goal target to have eradicated extreme poverty by 2030, the World
Bank has made it clear that we must see a more equal distribution of growth, with an
associated reduction in inequality.
In order to see a reduction in inequality you need more unequal growth, not more equal growth, you ignorant, ignorant, tosspots.
The incomes of the poor must grow more quickly than those of the rich in order to reduce inequality…..
To end the injustice of extreme poverty, it is clear
that economic inequality must be addressed.
Nope, not at all. to end extreme poverty we need to be creating more wealth, more value add. Because people can only consume value that is created.
Come on, you know that they produce this nonsense every year simply to ensure they get their invites to Davos….
Oxfam gets zero from me and can expect zero growth in that for the future.
It is an NGO in need of audit and shutdown. As are all CM eco-freak stooges.
Oxfam really are sodding idiots, aren’t they?
If only that were true because it’s precisely the lack of idiocy and the deliberate lie-telling that is so malevolent.
Oxfam is a political organisation first and foremost.
After three decades of poverty reduction
Is it a coincidence that these three decades of poverty reduction coincide with the same three decades of hideous globalisation and neo-liberalism? Let’s ask an expert.
The Charity Commission needs to come down hard on agit prop political organisations like Oxfam, masquerading as charities. Their income should be subjected to corporation tax.
BraveFart – “Their income should be subjected to corporation tax.”
I disagree. There are so many worth causes. Their income should be equalised across the sector. The big name charities should be forced to share the wealth with the smaller ones. I mean, on a purely voluntary, as helpfully suggested by a government Quango, sort of way.
After all, they are believers in equality aren’t they? So I am sure they will agree that the Sunderland Hedgehog Shelter has an equally valid claim on their cash.
These arguments always come down to how you answer one question;
Does you believe that Thomas Malthus’ theory applies to the entire human race?
If you answer “yes”, you will always wish for fewer humans and the destruction of wealth. Taken to its logical conclusion, you will tend towards authoritarianism.
The Malthusians have underestimated human ingenuity for 219 years now, but hey, maybe they’ll be right one day?
“After three decades of poverty reduction
Is it a coincidence that these three decades of poverty reduction coincide with the same three decades of hideous globalisation and neo-liberalism? Let’s ask an expert.”
Indded. I’ve just started Johan Norberg’s Progress, an excellent read so far. He discusses food in the first chapter and says:
“Since 1990-2, the proportion of undernourished people has declined from twenty-three to thirteen per cent of the global low- and middle-income country population. The number of hungry people has been reduced by 216 million. Since the population has grown by 1.9 billion people at the same time, the FAO estimates that about two billion people have been freed from a likely state of hunger in the past twenty-five years.”
Ch2 on sanitation — “Since 1990, 2.6 billion people have gained access to an improved water source , which means 285,000 more people got safe water every day for 25 years. Depending on how fast you read another 300-900 people will have got access to safe water before you have reached the end of this chapter [3 pages]”
Norman Borlaug is probably the man who has saved more lives than anyone else, some estimate over 1 billion, and he did more in his lifetime for the world’s poor than Oxfam and the other fake charities will do in all eternity.
The Charity Commission site shows that in the latest accounts 48% of Oxfam’s income came from government and other public authorities – £191.7m of a total £401.4m. It is basically an arm of state rather than a charity. We need to overhaul definitions to make it clear that most of the publically known charities are actually government departments. Charitable donations are quite small for Oxfam. A further £87m,for example, comes from their untaxed trading income!
It of course gets worse if you look at their expenditure. 33% was humanitarian aid – the sort of stuff that I thought Oxfam did. 46% is classed as development : ending violence against women in Zambia, advancing gender justice, sustainable water supplies in Tajikistan,etc. A further 5% goes on campaigning, such as what they call ending the challenge of extreme inequality. That’s right, more than 50 % of their expenditure is on SJW bullshit
My father bought a shredder primarily to ease the process of turning begging letters from Oxfam, CAFOD, War on Want etc. into wastepaper.
Diogenes is right. If I were quasi-benevolent dictator, one of the tasks on day one would be to get a Civil Service bod to make a list of “charities” that were in receipt of taxpayers’ money. Day two would be defunding them.
Bloke in Costa Rica – yes, can always spend the money being paid to the charities with other companies or departments doing the same stuff.
May have to pay more, perhaps quite a bit more. Most companies not in the habit of subsidising government work if they can get away from it.
Dear Mr Worstall
According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam, the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (telegraph address – OXFAM) was established to lobby the British government to lift the Allied blockade of Greece during World War II to allow food supplies in to relieve the famine caused by the occupying Axis forces – Germany, Italy and Bulgaria. (The Great Famine – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Greece))
If it sticks to its roots and lobbies government, all well and good, just not at the taxpayers’ expense.