« | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | »

Crikey!

Posted on January 22nd, 2013 at 18:04 by John Sinteur in category: Funny!

UqQJ6fp


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Those things get so big, when the waters are laced with them they’ve been known to clog waterways. The sole solution is to sock it to ‘em so hard that they won’t last.

  2. Hard to follow…At least it’s not a breeding pair.

Pale Blue Dot

Posted on January 22nd, 2013 at 17:29 by Paul Jay in category: Great Picture

1

2

 

3

 

4

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

9

10


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Inspiring as always.

Oxfam says world’s rich could end poverty

Posted on January 22nd, 2013 at 16:05 by Sueyourdeveloper in category: News

Quote

The $240 billion net income of the world’s 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group’s report released on Saturday.

The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum…

… the world’s richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process…

“We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true,”

Oxfam, bless them, are addressing the Davos audience – but saying the rich could end poverty is like saying wolves could stop sheep-stealing. And that $240 billion is income for last year…


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Oxfam don’t seem to know the difference between “income” and “change in net worth”. The links they cite as their sources for the stat are these:

    http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-billionaires-index/
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/billionaires-gain-as-living-standards-fall/5318471

    Both of which talk about changes in net worth.

    You might say that that makes little difference in the big picture, that these people could solve poverty anyway. But when the top “gainer” is the founder of the Zara clothing brand, whose wealth is undoubtedly entirely in his company’s stock, the $22 billion he gained is hard to convert to liquid assets, and certainly not available annually in a sustainable way.

    None of which is to claim that the increasing income inequality isn’t a problem. I think it is.

  2. Let’s not split hairs. The “increase in net worth” idea is quite a tidy way to hide income from the taxman for people in this category (and lots of others). Likewise, throwing money at poor people will probably not end poverty. (All this with a nod to people like Gates and Buffet who do seem to understand.)

    If the rich don’t push to fix society and make it work, then it’s not too hard to imagine bad things happening. Noblesse oblige or be eaten.

Cartoons

Posted on January 22nd, 2013 at 13:37 by John Sinteur in category: Cartoon


Write a comment