Comments:

1. Desiato on January 22nd, 2013 at 19:13:

   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. Sue W on January 23rd, 2013 at 1:57:

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

Comments:

1. Tim McCorry on January 26th, 2013 at 23:05:

   Inspiring as always.

Comments:

1. Desiato on January 22nd, 2013 at 19:10:

   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. Sue W on January 23rd, 2013 at 0:56:

   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.