Socialists cannot do a lot of things, apparently. They cannot operate an economy, first and foremost, because it requires them to become successful capitalists. They also cannot abide tradition. The idea of families drive them crazy, which is something we’ll touch on in more detail later. Most of all, it seems, they cannot do math. They still seem to believe they can end global poverty if only we stole people’s wealth.
According to a new socialist-lite puff piece in Newsweek, not only can billionaires end extreme poverty, but they can do it seven times over. They can basically, according to socialist dreams, divide their wealth among the huddled masses and end global poverty now and forever. And that’s the important thing on which to focus here: Global poverty.
We’re not talking about a few million people below the poverty line in America here. We’re talking about global poverty – that’s all the people pooping in India’s streets, Africa’s women pushing seven or more children into the world with no way to feed them, etc. Global poverty is around 3 billion people, most of whom live in the third-world and are extremely poor; like don’t know where their next meal is coming from and don’t have running water poor. Global poverty is the kind of poor that makes first-world poverty seem rich.
Sure, many people struggle with poverty in America, but once you factor in government benefits, shelters, food banks, etc, even our homeless population has a better overall lifestyle than people in the poorest parts of India and Africa.
In no way am I even remotely saying that they’re well off or that somehow poor people don’t matter. Understand the body of context I’m building here. I’m simply pointing out that the socialists who think “poverty” is ended by murdering the rich and stealing their wealth like a pre-Augustus Octavian Caesar teaming up with Marc Antony really don’t seem to understand the scale of global poverty.
The Newsweek socialist masturbation is a direct result of the Bloomberg Technology article that gave them the numbers on billionaires. I cannot say for sure that the Bloomberg folks are socialists, but they’re certainly giving boners to socialists here.
So before we get into the facts of socialists’ social policies which beget poverty, let’s try our hand at some math.
I’m not great at math, but according to this article, all the world’s billionaires, over 2,000 of them, have a combined net worth of around $5 trillion! That’s a shit-ton of a lot of money! Five trillion dollars!
It sounds like such an infinite amount of money that of course you would assume this would end extreme poverty across the globe, and many times over!
But what is 5,000,000,000,000 divided by 3,000,000,000? Well, turns out, you’re looking at right around $1,700. That’s it.
“That can’t be right,” you’re shouting. No. It is. I have a calculator and everything. It’s around $1,700 for every poor person. Let’s say that 1 billion of the global poverty number is actually children, which leaves you 2 billion adults for whom to provide. Well, boom! Problem solved. Right? Yeah… now we’re looking at exactly $2,500. You probably don’t even need a calculator for that, if you can remember the zeroes rule and figure out half of 5.
This is their genius sophist, heart-strings-tugging talking point: If only we could get rid of billionaires and their concentrated wealth, we could end poverty.
Okay. What happens when a poor person gets $2,500?
We can see exactly what happens in a nation like America. Our poor people get that easy per month in welfare benefits. For example, single mothers who have their rent comped, food given to them, monetary payments, and even a phone, receive about that amount every month. Where does it get them?
Oh, that’s right – welfare in first-world nations becomes generational. Mommy’s on welfare, so the kids end up likely to drop out of school and to end up on welfare too. But wait… I thought giving people money is what ended poverty!
Say you’re a mother with two children and you managed to work about a week at a regular job for the tax year. You file your returns. You get over $1,500 per kid. That’s over $3,000 you get just for a child tax credit. That money is basically free; you just have to figure out how to file a tax return, and literally one week of a payroll job will do it.
How does that money lift these poor people out of poverty?
We all know the answer: It doesn’t.
Nor would this socialist pipe dream end global poverty. Hell, it wouldn’t even have much of a positive net effect on global poverty.
Think about it.
Okay, you drop $2,500 into the hands of all the poor people living on the mean shit-stained streets of India. They’re going to be able to get some food. That’s a good thing! But are they gonna have a place to live? If so, for how long? You just literally robbed the life’s work of over 2,000 billionaires on the planet, leaving them utterly f*cking penniless, all so you can give people a big, huge, life-changing sum of $2,500. This money will not turn their economies golden. Even if they’re not blowing the money like idiots—because, let’s face it, a huge part of global poverty is people being stupid and not understanding money anyway—it’s not going to last them that long.
Best-case scenario: You turn abject, cruel, vicious, stomach-lining-eating poverty into a nicer sort of poverty for a few months. Then right back to the body eating itself during starvation.
Hey, do we really have to bring up the “teach a man to fish” parable here? Are socialists really that damn stupid?
And how about an impoverished Africa!? Boy, this is where we’re really looking at $2,500 not going far. These impoverished people have like five or more kids to feed on average. Okay, so their housing is made out of what’s available around the wilderness, or lack thereof. So that’s money they can put to food and water, and only food and water. So how long will it last them? Let’s be incredibly generous here and say two years for every poor family in Africa.
Congratulations, you Bern-feelin’ f*ggots! You just robbed blind every rich person on the planet for a two-year food supply for poor people in Africa.
Is it worth it?
You didn’t build them any houses. You didn’t revitalize or create flourishing economies in the world’s poorest regions. You didn’t teach anyone to be self-sufficient. After their money is gone, they still don’t know how to get clean water. They still don’t know how to raise farm animals and till the land for crops.
All you’re doing is a massive charity food drop for people, and you’re literally crippling the entire world’s economy in the process. In other words, by stealing the accumulative wealth of these 2,000 people, you’re not only driving them into poverty, but practically everyone else who relies on the stock market and suchlike for their living. So while you’ve just managed to feed 3 billion people for a few months, now there’s another 3 billion in poverty. And let’s not even pretend you believe in a “trickle-down” effect of a blossoming economy from people with money to spend!
(And this is assuming they have all their “wealth” in liquid cash for your to steal. But since you’re dreaming, I’ll help you out by dreaming alongside you…)
The absolute best way for people to get out of poverty, a way to drastically minimize global poverty, is something socialists are entirely against. You do this by getting married and having a family. Two-parent households give families a much better chance of avoiding poverty. And you also do this by not having children you cannot afford. This means having some personal responsibility. Though we know already that this is far too much to expect from socialists. It’s always the rich people’s fault, never the poor people.
Socialists shit all over the idea of tradition. They think that’s what led to the mythical white male capitalist patriarchy, so what we need is an entire planet of strong Mary Sues acting as single mothers, with fewer white people. Oh, yeah, and don’t forget no rich people. Steal their money because it will help… because I was too busy texting during class and never even learned grade-school math.
Bloomberg aren’t the socialists here, but it’s a fact that some socialists have used this article to put together some ridiculous math that says global poverty would be solved seven times if only billionaires had their wealth stolen.
It cannot be solved once. Where in the f*ck did these morons get seven times from? It’s astoundingly retarded.
This isn’t even an opinion piece. It’s not necessarily even political. This article is the result of your boy Brian Hendrix being able to do a tiny bit of math.
If you don’t believe me and disagree, run the calculations. Hell, let’s assume that 2 billion are children and we’re only having to divide the wealth among 1 billion poor people! This is ridiculously easy math. Just the 2,500 X 2 = $5,000.
How does having $5,000 end extreme poverty!?
It doesn’t. We all know it doesn’t.
These socialists’ pipe dreams are not in any way about ending global poverty. They’re all about being anti-rich. They want to blame the rich for… hell, I’m not even sure. The people who write this garbage have the latest iPhones, drink expensive Starbucks coffee and live comfortable lives in the first-world west. They’re not the poor ones. Yet they have romanticized socialism and now believe all rich people are evil.
Look, capitalism is not perfect. I’ll be the first one to shout that from a rooftop. But I’m incredibly thankful that these wide-eyed idiot socialists aren’t in charge of our economy. They would steal everyone’s wealth away and the entire planet would be like Venezuela.
If you think stealing money to spread it out helps people, you’re an idiot.
Don’t take my word for it. Just do the f*cking math.