I’ve been saying it for years, funny to hear someone high profile on tv say the exact same thing. Maybe I should contact him like some crazy fan to start of some sort of website venture about it

Halfwit (very clever man with political aims – a housemate whose name was changed by depole for gags and to assure his position in the house) found issues with the solution suggested, but despite his rather logical words, I still think it’s the best solution by miles and his objections could easily be resolved.

I actually rather militantly think that all the governments should make an agreement to tax every single working person an extra monetary value monthly tax that is to fully enable this to happen.

As the years go by and countries are providing with the resources and recovery to allow them to support themselves we probably won’t even need to carry on with it forever.

Not only is it the right thing to do (and if we have to force people so be it), but it’s likely to reduce war also, which in itself will save money.

It’s never going to happen though.

And from this perspective we view the World -the have’s and the have nots (and all shades in between), in the monetary sense. So if suddenly all the money flow is directed away from its current direction to those who are currently cut off from the flow, what happens? I’d guess not a lot in general after a period of restabalising. You’ll just have a load of new people doing the same stupid things with money that we do, wouldn’t we?

Is it possible for everyone to have access to forms of wealth which provide at least food, shelter and health care? Of course, I’d say, but this kind of Global environment can’t be created from a current mindset which is locked into our dominant economic structure, can it?

Too much fear around to share pieces of the pie.

My view is that most people in the back of their minds want to help, but just won’t move that extra foot to actually do something, because the problem is too remote.

I believe it will take the likes of “Red Nose Day” to mobilise people; because they can relate to the event rather than the issue.

Government experts and Quangos will never solve the problem.

Stan

http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=106092

They have already repaid 50% of the loan I made .

I also agree that we cannot on our own solve the worlds problems.

There are many practical ways we can help named individuals directly , http://www.kiva.org/ is a micro loan system.

Simply you invest in small businesses by making loans and they repay over a schedule.

When they have repaid , you can then invest in other businesses.

Why do we need new systems – we have systems in place already to get help to the people who need it, most people are too greedy and lazy to give that help (money)is the problem.

I can’t quite get past the sheer simplicity that if everyone in the world who had money, was willing to give some of it up to help others, there would be no poverty, suffering… because there would be enough affluence for everyone.

I imagine the problem to be that not enough people are willing to hand over some of their cash to save other people and those that are willing can’t do it all by themselves because their own cash won’t stretch to save the world. Am I making it too simple?

An example is Kevin Allen of Banana Appeal, he’s giving his all to save children in Africa, he couldn’t do any more than he has done, but it’s still not enough to feed/care for all the children he wants to support. If everyone in the western world who had money gave him just £5 each he’d probably be able to feed and house all those children in Africa. Why is it all on his shoulders and a few others whilst everyone else just ignores it.

The fact that charities are still struggling for enough funds makes me think that there are a huge amount of people in the western world giving bog all.

Again, am I simplifying things?

10 years ago I got chatting on a forum to an American living in Russia and we found that we shared a favourite in the Ignorance and Want allegory from A Christmas Carol. I was to find out later that he was pioneering the moral collateral form of microfinance as deployed by Grameen – in Russia.

He’d been invited to serve on Clinton’s re-election committee where he delivered a white paper about capitalism and a new way of doing things. then he became homeless.

While still homeless and with a little bit of money left he took himself to Russia in 1999 spending what he had to research and source the Tomsk initiative. Over 4 years the bank supported creation of 10,000 new businesses.

He was homeless again in 2003, blogging from a tent about economic rights and fasting. I offered him the chance to work together and he came here to launch the new economic paradigm he’d described to Clinton.

Both of us tried and floundered when it came to adopting a family, he’s lived now for 5 years in Ukraine after UK government made him unwelcome as a visitor.

I guess how things turn out sometimes has an influence on what matters and to both of us, neither fathers in our own right, the existence of so many children abused and neglected in some parts of the world takes us toward wanting to do something radical about it. We have made a good start I think.

Jeff

We should all remember that when we walk by on the other side, and further remember that all those further human beings on a dollar a day may be eating but they’re getting no pleasure and not much nutrition.

Sharp contrast with an article I read on Sunday about “Hedge Fund Wives” in New York making do with three $50 bottles of wine at dinner instead of something “nice”. But then lavish expenditure is a crude form of ostentation, is it not?