Extending vaccines to the worlds poorest

October 31, 2009

Joe-Cerrell-410.jpg–Joe Cerrell is director of Global Health Policy and Advocacy at the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. He oversees the foundation’s global health communications, public policy, and international finance. The views expressed are his own. –

I recently took my three-year-old twin daughters to their annual doctor visit, where they received their latest round of routine vaccinations.  Thanks to the miracle of vaccines, I know my daughters will be protected for life against measles, tetanus, and other diseases that were once serious threats. But incredibly, millions of children in poor countries still die from diseases that could easily be prevented with the effective, affordable vaccines that Americans take for granted.

Fortunately, that is starting to change.  This week, a landmark report from the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the World Bank concludes that a renewed global push on childhood immunization has raised the number of children vaccinated to an all-time high.  The authors find that vaccines now save 2.5 million lives worldwide every year.

(Read related Reuters story: Global immunizations hit record but miss millions.)

As we continue expanding access to basic vaccines that have existed for decades, we also need to ensure that new vaccines quickly reach children in need.  Typically, when new vaccines are invented, they don’t become available in poor countries until years, or even decades, after being introduced in the U.S. What’s more, effective vaccines don’t yet exist for some of the developing world’s biggest killers, like malaria and HIV.

This situation is a classic case of markets failing the world’s poorest people. Because poor countries have limited ability to pay, vaccine makers have little incentive to make the enormous investments required to develop and manufacture new vaccines for the developing world.  So vaccines remain unavailable where they could save the most lives.

Now, innovative thinking on global markets promises to bring long-overdue change.

One of the most exciting new approaches takes aim at pneumococcal disease, a leading killer of children worldwide. While relatively unknown to Americans, pneumococcal disease causes the deaths of more than a million young children worldwide each year, 90 percent of them in developing countries.

If you’re an American parent like me, your kids are probably protected against pneumococcal disease by a vaccine called Prevnar, made by Wyeth.  But this and other pneumococcal vaccines were designed for use in wealthy nations.  They don’t protect against the types of the disease that are common in the developing world.

That is about to change thanks to a groundbreaking partnership launched with financial support from the governments of Italy, the UK, Canada, Norway, and Russia, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Known as the Advance Market Commitment, or AMC, the effort could save the lives of seven million children over the next 20 years.

The AMC applies a concept that is simple but had never been tried before.  In essence, the six donors have made a promise:  If vaccine makers develop and produce affordable pneumococcal vaccines designed specifically for poor countries, then the donors will buy them.  By committing $1.5 billion, in advance, they’re helping to create a predictable market where none existed before.   With the necessary incentives in place, vaccine makers can make the investments needed to develop the new vaccines and manufacture them on a large scale.

To qualify for the AMC, participating companies must make long-term, binding commitments to provide the new vaccines at affordable prices.   Thanks to donor funding and the manufacturers’ pricing commitments, developing countries will be able to purchase the vaccines at guaranteed prices of no more than $3.50 per dose.  The first of the new vaccines could become available as soon as 2010.  Developing countries are already signing up to purchase them.

If the AMC for pneumococcal vaccines proves successful, a similar model could be used to quicken the development of other urgently needed drugs and vaccines, such as new vaccines against tuberculosis, the cause of some 1.8 million deaths worldwide each year.

The AMC is one of several new initiatives that are creatively using market principles to save lives in the developing world.  For example, through a partnership launched earlier this year, donors are negotiating with manufacturers to dramatically reduce prices on the most effective drugs against malaria.  By making these prices comparable with those of older, much less effective drugs, they hope to greatly increase the number of patients who are successfully treated.  In another effort, the World Bank and donor governments have quickly raised billions of dollars for childhood immunization by issuing bonds in the global capital markets.  The funding unlocked by these bonds could help to immunize 500 million children worldwide.

Vaccines are arguably humanity’s greatest scientific achievement, and have already saved countless lives over the last 50 years.  Today, the AMC and other new approaches offer more ways to extend the benefits of vaccines to everyone in need.  With millions of lives still at stake, it’s time to use them.

25 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

New vaccines for Africa.

Saving millions of lives….and creating the new generations of vaccine resistant disease at the same time.

That is why Africa needs to pay top dollar. So it can finance the development of new vaccines.

It’s perfectly fine for them to render the developed world’s vaccines useless. But they shouldn’t expect to be able to do it for free.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

I will pray for your daughters, vaccinating them will increase their chances now significantly to the permanet disability of autoimmune disease.Auto immune disease did not exist prior to vaccination. Only individuals vaccinated develop autoantibodies which lead to autoimmune disease. While the little boys in our country suffer more autism, up to one in 62……oh, right only vaccinated children develop autism. The testosterone in males makes them much more susceptible to the neurotoxins in vaccines.Thimerasol is not gone from vaccines. In little girls the estrogen is protective moreso than testosterone and they suffer only one in 92 vaccinated for autism. However, they pay the price later with autoimmune disease. You are so very ignoratn on the truths of vaccine safety and their effectiveness. Vaccines never were………they are ASSUMED TO BE…….but they never ever were the golden chalince of immunity that vaccine shills like Paul Offitt (the 30 million dollar man-read 30 pieces of silver about his little conflicts of interest)broadcasts. Read follow the money and you will find out the only benefactors from the vaccination process.

Posted by Pat Jordan | Report as abusive

I agree with Pat. I was vaccinated against polio and small pox at a young age, as for the rest, I had to fend off and manage myself.

Maybe the ‘Developed World’ should vaccinate itself and shift its attention to cancer research.

Posted by Casper | Report as abusive

There is no scientifically proven link between vaccinations and autism, the one paper that indicated this was true was discredited 10 years ago. Autism is more widely reported now due to the broad sprectrum of disorders now labeled ‘autism’, and early testing. Vaccinations do not create resistant strains of virus’ or bacteria, it is the innappropriate misuse of antibiotics and antivirals that help to create these super bugs. And as far as Anon’s comment that Africa should pay top dollar for vaccine’s is rediculous and is not worthy of rebuttal.

Posted by Sarah | Report as abusive

Vaccines For The Poor rolls off the tongue so nicely. It could also be the first time in a long time that the West has done anything for Africa without strings attached. It could, indeed…

If, however, this undertaking were to degenerate into the same sort of science project as forced vaccination of U.S military personnel with toxins unknown and zero legal manufacturer liability, and if it involves any of the same abhorrent contrivance as H1N1 Pan(dem)ic In A Bottle – as with many of the same or similar supply-side players involved is almost certain to be the case – this feel-good initiative risks having done major irreversible disservice and damage to an entire continent.

Tested, proven vaccines that work under conditions of full accountability are one thing. Corporations using people as guinea pigs are quite another, insufficiently dissimilar to Rudolf Mengele gone wild by far grander dimension than even he may have dreamt possible.

I’d want to be sure we let the right genie out of the vial this time, not further subsidizing those whose business it is to go on sickening the world for profit.

Posted by The Bell | Report as abusive

I’m with Anon. Imagine how much better the world would be if vaccines for polio and small pox were never developed. Sure, lots of people would be paralyzed or dead, but we wouldn’t be dealing the those terrible super-polio and super-small pox bugs.

oh, wait…

Sounds really noble, however it does make me question why? Is this truly an selfless motive on the behalf of the foundation? Because you save children who live absolute abject poverty, for what? To ensure their survival, for what?

It makes me think that this and one laptop per child are really designed to build the base for the next 25-30 years of it and technical help outsourcing. After all, they’re poor and they know technology, so whom better to employ them than the benevolent corporate entity who saved them?

Honestly the poor throughout the world would be better served with more birth control options to plan parenthood. When one can barely feed one’s family, more mouths are not the answer. Because when you start to come up from the abject poverty, you realize it is better to have fewer children and invest more in those few.

Posted by nika | Report as abusive

Thanks for the misquotation, Drewbie.

I never said that those vaccines for small-pox and polio shouldn’t have been developed.

What I said is that when you send these vaccines to Africa, all you end up with is more overpopulation and the creation of more super-resistant diseases.

And if you provide the vaccines for free, you don’t even earn the money to develop new vaccines to replace the ones rendered useless by Africa’s massive population.

Care to provide another sardonic remark?

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

You vaccinate Africa kids. This is a Holy cause.
But with the huge reproduction rate population immediately overgrows little natural resources they have. They start dying in numbers from famine and brutal conflicts over resources.
Now you have to provide them with food and security.
Their pity leaders play tribalism and jealous against you. Finally local population hates you over all aids you provide.

After 50 yrs of humanitarian aid Africa doesn’t come close to prosperity.
I am not Malthusian.
We must provide aid as package of vaccinate, food, education and culture. Local leaders must accept it as package.
Here is utopia…
The 3 biggest issues behind Africa troubles are tribalism, lack of education and lack of security.
We can buy land in country like Congo and run it according to our rules and provide aid only on our conditions. I believe that many locals will jump on chance to enter safe heaven.

Posted by SKV | Report as abusive

nika-
the selfish half of the Gates equation is that he doesn’t pay taxes on money he donates. This isn’t a 25 year investment in to potential cheap labor.

And while you’re right, those living in poverty would benefit from better birth control options, the kids who are born still need care too.

Just a quick comment: It’s a lot easier to take people seriously when they don’t have major spelling or grammatical errors in their posts. (This is especially true now that most browsers have spellcheck.) Get with it, people!

Posted by Jonathan | Report as abusive

drewbie-

Mr. Gates can say that the reason he does this is because he doesn’t wish to pay taxes on the money or any reason, really. However, some us may choose not to believe this and may think that he has ulterior motives for doing so. It’s my perogative to guess and his perogative to donate-for whatever reason(s) he wishes. I think in 15-20 years the truth may be closer to that which I have surmised, than that which you have surmised.

As for the children that are already here, I would assume that their care for good or bad should be most directly in the hands of those that brought them into this world. Not some faraway foundation. Besides, you save the children living in poverty-so that they can continue to live in poverty with the potential millions of other children who would be saved. There’s no betterment or enrichment to their lives. As cruel as it sounds, better to die when you’ve no food to eat, no clean water to drink and no safe environment to grow up in. It’s far less cruel than the alternative.

And before you think me completely heartless, I wouldn’t advocate so strongly for voluntary birth control unless I truly did care about children and their plight. You must love children to want them to grow up in a safe, clean environment which will provide them with opportunities for education and enrichment.

Posted by nika | Report as abusive

Jonathan, may I add that I find many of the comments uninformed, generalized, patronizing and downright insulting. Do yourself a favour and read the Africa web page below, it is a highly complex continent. Drewbie, let’s not forget the Euro Pox that destroyed the lives of many Native Amerigos.

Posted by Casper | Report as abusive

Anon-
I’m unaware of any super-disease that resulted from vaccinations. Sarah explained pretty well that you’re confusing them with the antibiotic resistance that some bacteria develop. Also, I must have missed the part in the article where it said no other type of aid would be sent to help with the other problems you named. That the Gates Foundation is choosing vaccines in particular doesn’t mean Africa won’t be getting help with food or poverty.

nika-
You’re certainly free to guess away, but occam’s razor agrees with me. But I’d be more than happy to admit being wrong in 15-20 years if that’s the case.

“I’m unaware of any super-disease that resulted from vaccinations. Sarah explained pretty well that you’re confusing them with the antibiotic resistance that some bacteria develop.”

No. I wasn’t talking about antibiotic resistance.

Rather, I was referring to the fact that as a vaccine creates passive immunity in a population, those strains which survive are those which mutate. And when the form of virus mutates sufficiently, further vaccines must be developed from these new forms in order to combat them.

Sarah remarked that vaccines do not result in new resistant strains of virus. This is true, in the sense that even when a virus mutates to the point where it no longer responds to a vaccine, a new vaccine can potentially be made from that virus itself.

But the truth also remains that the mass use of vaccinations, particularly where disease is wide spread, encourages viral mutation.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

I was pretty sure that was what you meant.

But that “truth” doesn’t remain. As my original post pointed out, no super polio or small pox ever developed. No super tetnus has ever developed. The only vaccine I’m aware of that needs to be continously redeveloped is the one for influenza, and that virus mutates naturally. Vaccines have no impact on it’s course.

Please link to some research about a vaccine directly causing a mutation to flourish.

Vaccines are just the tip of the giant iceberg we have to deal with.

Poverty, hunger, lack of education, and violence all breed disease. And there is no vaccine for these things. The greatest disease of all it seems, is moral relativism. The idea that truth is mutable.

This is the deadliest lie of all. What is, IS. That is truth. The truth is that there are millions going hungry, and sick, and desperate for some kind of relief.

This truth is borne by the fact that we in the “developed” parts of the world have no regard for our own people, let alone people from other parts of the world. But if we don’t tackle and solve these problems, desperation will grow. Poverty and illness will increase. And more and more people will find themselves willing to kill and spread violence because they can get nothing to ease their suffering in any other way.

We talk of money as if this is the route to peace. But it will only make things worse. Until we understand that money occupies a secondary or even tertiary place in matters of life, we will be bound by the desire to extract pleasure and comfort for ourselves at the expense of the sick and suffering.

Discussions of a technical and logistical nature should only be engaged in AFTER one has decided to take action and not before.

This article points to halfhearted initiatives to bring vaccines to those that need it. But all that has been done is to work out an arrangement by which all parties involved production of the vaccines might profit.

This is exactly why solutions of this type will never be complete or satisfactory. Complex problems in our society are only touched if there is a way to profit from the complexity. A way has been devised to spread vaccines at a profit. Now how about that malnutrition? How about more clean drinking water and educational institutions?

Is it possible to profit from doing all of these things? Actually it is. But the profit gained is not monetary. Peace and health and long life are much more valuable than money.

“Discussions of a technical and logistical nature should only be engaged in AFTER one has decided to take action and not before.”

Completely incorrect.

The technical and logistical considerations are the most important part of action. These things determine how action can be done, if it can be done and if it is even practical to take action at all.

The greatest failure of idealism is that it reaches conclusions about action, but fails to base these conclusions on technical or logistical factors.

Which ultimately means that their conclusion will fail, because their planned action is beyond the practical limitations of reality.

If their conclusion fails, then the consequences you mention will happen anyway. Meaning the true loss is the fact that we spent billions to stop the unstoppable, when we should have been spending that money preparing for the inevitable.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Hmmm,

If you don’t plan on doing something then what’s the point of talking about how to do it?

You talk about how you’re going to do something once you’ve actually decided to do it. Otherwise ANY inconvenience can be used as an excuse not to do it.

A leader makes the decision to move, and then decides how that movement will be accomplished. This is when discussing all of the logistics and technicalities take place. Only then can a choice be made. But without deciding to walk a path it makes no difference how difficult that path may or may not be.

If you think that the plan comes before the decision to act, and if our leaders think this way, then it’s no wonder things suck.

Those in power have made the decision to look out for their own interests. And as a result have come up with a plethora of gimmicks to make it happen.

If one truly wants to solve a problem then that desire to solve the problem becomes the decision to act.

You shouldn’t try to correct someone’s logic if you don’t understand the underlying premise.

Hmmm,

I don’t mean to be harsh. But if I understand correctly. You seem to be suggesting that a person will act without choosing to act. And once a person finds themselves in action they must decide how to accomplish it. Is this correct?

Or perhaps you mean to say that when a person wants to do something, they need to see how tough it’s going to be first before deciding?

In some instances you might be correct. But in matters of such importance as life/death. You act to save life. No matter how difficult. ANYTHING can be accomplished when two or more people come together in agreement. And the only obstacle to making things work in these cases is simply the human will to do.

Remember we are talking about obstacles like money and finance. These things are under the control of human beings. There is no real difficulty other than the human desire to attach ones self to profit/comfort/pleasure.

Hence the technicalities in this case involve figuring out how to make sure everyone involved has something in it for them.
This is very low human thinking. And it’s the kind of thinking that will destroy us unless we grow up in a spiritual sense.

Otherwise there is only death.

The error in logic is yours.

You believe that there is only one correct action, and this is the action you choose to support. So you believe that as the correct action is self-evident, it is the action which comes first and the planning which comes second.

The reality is that when a leader makes a decision, he is not just deciding to act. He is deciding whether to act at all, and if so which action is the correct one to make.

And in reaching that correct decision, the practical realities of each option must inevitably be considered. After all, why take action if it is impossible to do so or when the result is ineffectual?

An example is people who believe capitalism has failed. They conclude that capitalism is flawed, that it harms others and that the system must be removed. They believe this conclusion is self-evident.

What they don’t do is figure out how capitalism can be ‘fixed’. Nor do they figure out how they will end the system, what the system will be replaced with, or how society will be moved from one system to the other. So for all their ideas, they have no actual solutions.

Likewise with the curing of global poverty. The sheer number of populations in the third world prevent them from having a quality of life remotely comparable to the developed world.

And this is even without accounting for growing populations, future oil levels and global warming. All of which will worsen the problem within the next few decades.

Your ideas about casting aside materialism and helping all of humanity is not new. Many people have thought the same thing, proclaimed it as self-evident and insisted that it must be done as soon as possible.

But what they always fail to do is figure out how it will be done. All ideas and no solutions. And so, their ideas remain unworkable.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Hmmm,

The reason you are having trouble with my logic is because the solution really is just as simple as choosing to value the lives of your fellows over and above your own good pleasures.

We are by nature social beings. We need each other just to survive. But instead of paying attention to what nature has placed in us by design, we choose ignore it in favor of justification of self gratification at the expense of others.

Your argument is quite rational and logical. The problem is that human beings are not lead by logic or reason. The role of the mind is to find the paths that lead to the fulfillment of desire. And desire is housed in the heart. Therefore human beings are first and foremost creatures of feeling.

As the saying goes, “if you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter”. Deciding whether to act at all is a decision in and of itself. So choice still precedes logistical considerations.

It is exceptionally easy to flout technicalities as the main culprit to lack of progress. But these considerations are directly tied to the human desire for profit/comfort/pleasure.

All considerations boil down to these desires and nothing more. Capitalism is indeed flawed. It can be fixed simply enough just by putting it in its place. Right now we have ‘for profit’ educational institutions, health systems, and housing sectors. All of these have suffered and have caused citizens to suffer.

Areas that deal specifically with human development health and security should not be ‘for profit’ endeavors. And the reason should be obvious.

How would for profit police and fire protection pan out? Not very well at all. In these instances we understand that it is vitally important that these protections be available to the population at large. Humanitarian work is likewise of such importance that it must not be placed in the hands of the profit seeking sector. The desire for profit simply takes precedence over the work to be done.

Capitalism works for things that are not at the center of human development and well being. And so, the remedy for capitalism is restraint. Capitalism must be kept out of areas central to human well being and development. These tasks are more suited to socialistic methods of action. Yes socialistic. Just like our police, fire departments, K-12 educational systems. Apply the appropriate system for the task at hand and then refine the system to make it better at what it already does well.

For the buying and selling of goods and services capitalism is fine. But also remember that those who extolled the virtues of capitalism are the very same people that came to the government of the people with their tails between their legs asking for us to bail THEM out. And after these die hard capitalists took the people’s money, they immediately turned around and demand that each citizen pay their “debts”.

Your argument is weak. You are attempting to justify the failure capitalism by pointing to technicalities that never the less, are still under human control and therefor subject to human desire. Remember the AIG CEO doing God’s work article? God’s work is done by the prophets. Not the profits.
Keep justifying a system that requires a percentage of the population to be in abject poverty and you may well find yourself on the underside of that system. Then you can comfort yourself in knowledge that at least business is good.

We are not animals and we should not be content to live as such.

As I said, all ideas and no solutions.

You believe that the truth is self-evident. That human behaviour of today is incorrect, and that it must be changed into the ‘correct’ behaviour.

Why then, are things as they are? In a system which now self-perpetuates itself and cannot be removed from a society now dependent on it? That doesn’t sound like the current system is flawed to me, rather it seems like the current system has reached equilibrium.

Rather then point out the ‘flaws’ in capitalism, how about giving us an alternative system and how we will change to it?

Keeping in mind, of course, that the entire wealth of the world is caused by corporations and profit-seeking ventures. And without a factor of profit, there is no need for corporations to contribute their money to any of your plans.

Capitalism doesn’t finance police or fire services, true. Rather, it finances the nations who provide these services.

Imagine that all the companies and corporations in America suddenly go somewhere else and take the banks with them. No employment, no company tax, no exports, no bank loans. How long do you think government services will last?

Humans are social and feeling creatures, to a point. But we are biological creatures first, on a planet of scarce resources, seeking individual profit.

All creatures, big and small, live in a world of limited resources. They seek to maximise their gain, avoid running out of resources and successfully competing against others.

And where creatures form a community, it to maximise the gain of the many at the loss of the few, with the individual’s goal of biological profit.

Human behaviour is economic behaviour. All we humans did is take the same scarcity problem which forms the basis of nature itself and called it economics.

And I think you will find that even the barest of crumbs from the mouth of profits has cured more poverty then the words from the mouths of prophets ever will.

Essentially, that is what all charity is. The crumbs of capitalism. When we give some of what we have to the poor, remember that it is the sheer wealth of corporatism which makes it possible. No corporations means no wealthy nations, meaning no charity to give.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Hmmm,

To quote your last post:

“Keeping in mind, of course, that the entire wealth of the world is caused by corporations and profit-seeking ventures. And without a factor of profit, there is no need for corporations to contribute their money to any of your plans.”

Now we get to the heart of it. It is the idea of what we consider to be wealth and profit. Money is considered wealth. And a surplus of money gained from selling is considered profit. Why is money valued? Because money can be used in our society to bring pleasure and comfort. We can trade money for any bright shiny material bell or whistle we have enough money to buy.

Do you bury your money? Do you eat it? Do you wear it? Of course not! You buy stuff with it. And this is at the very heart of the profit motive. People want to make money so that they can buy neat stuff with it. And so we work for people who have money and are willing to pay for our services. Or we go out and create a business of our own through which we can earn money so that we can buy our material comforts and pleasures.

To key in on a portion of your post:
“And without a factor of profit, there is no need for corporations to contribute their money to any of your plans.”

It’s not that there isn’t a need. Rather there is no desire. And that is a whole world of difference. There doesn’t always need to be a direct return on investment. And most times there shouldn’t be anyway. Also, we aren’t talking about MY plans here. At least I’m not anyway. I’m talking about the superiority of altruistic motivation over self serving motivations such as profit.

But altruistic thinking is an order of maturity higher than our current state. You believe that without profit (if there isn’t something in it for me), then there is no incentive to act (why should I help you?).

“Humans are social and feeling creatures, to a point. But we are biological creatures first, on a planet of scarce resources, seeking individual profit. All creatures, big and small, live in a world of limited resources. They seek to maximise their gain, avoid running out of resources and successfully competing against others.“
And here of course you are quite correct. We are indeed biological creatures. But you stop short of recognizing just how superior you are to other forms of life on this planet. Of course you share the bondage of biological needs. But you also have a creative mind that allows you to bring your ideas into objective reality. And you have a body that is designed to work with objective reality for the purpose of manifesting your desires in the outer world. This ability allows you as a human being to move beyond the pull of simple biology. If we didn’t have this capacity there would be no such thing as human civilization. We would live only as animals searching for the next meal and the next mate.

Also we have a cultural misconception that is very common about competition. Competition is a game of mutual support. Each contestant pushes and indeed assists the other “players” to do their best. And the “contest “ is to see how much better the results of “X” endeavor can be made. All competitors are supposed to help each other. And the resulting good is intended for everyone.

While any portion of the population suffers for lack basic human needs, the whole of the population will eventually suffer. Where all needs are met there is no desperation. There is no fear. And no desire for violence. By “all needs” of course I mean physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs. The latter being a personal journey. Housing, education, health, and security must be socialized. And this shouldn’t come as a shock. We already have socialized police, fire protection, k-12 education, and military branches. So health, education, and housing, all of which are vital human needs should be no different.

In answer to your statement:
“And I think you will find that even the barest of crumbs from the mouth of profits has cured more poverty then the words from the mouths of prophets ever will.

Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him all his life.
This is the value of the words of the prophets. Profits on the other hand are here today and gone tomorrow. Profit is the fish given for a day. The poverty you speak of is not outside you. It is inside you. In a poor house full of love, where one eats, two eat. In a rich house full of selfishness where one eats no one else eats. Instead they get your version of charity. “Essentially, that is what all charity is. The crumbs of capitalism.”

Another small light to cast into your misunderstanding:
“When we give some of what we have to the poor, remember that it is the sheer wealth of corporatism which makes it possible. No corporations means no wealthy nations, meaning no charity to give.”
When we give of what we have it is because we choose to give. It’s not because a corporation allows us to give. You are a human being with a mind. And you are bright. But you still have yet to realize your own worth. Corporations, and capitalism, and money, etc… all come from the mind of the human being. That which is inside you and gives life and mind to you, is not rooted in this matter that find yourself in. As a human being you have something far greater at your root. Altruism prioritizes this root above all else in this world. With life and love being the foundation of existence. All systems developed by the human mind will reflect the foundations upon which they are built. The foundation upon which we currently build is selfishness. And selfishness breeds suffering. And no amount of selfish work will make selfishness itself any less poisonous to your heart. Give because you love and it will be a blessing. Give for want of profit and it will be a curse.

You speak of money as if it were worthless. It is a measure of worth.

It buys you the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the home you live in, the car you drive, electricity, clean water, health, and all the technology you take for granted.

All of these things are provided to you because you pay for them. If you didn’t pay for them, there would be no reason for anyone to make these things or provide them to you.

And where do you get the money to pay for them? From your work. From some form of contribution you make to the economy (i.e. society) which indicates that you are worth having the food, water, shelter and space to which you are accustomed.

Or alternatively, if you are not worth anything to society, there are enough other people of worth that you can live off the sweat of their brow instead of your own. Thanks to a nation wealthy enough to give government benefits.

The corporations are the reason for the immense wealth of the society in which you live. Whether you choose to give the money you earn to a charitable cause or not is your will. But whether you had a job to earn that money, or an economy to gain that money, or a country where you are wealthy enough to part with that money, is the will of the corporations.

Your definition of competition has no bearing with the actual meaning of the word in biology or society. It is merely your idea of what you think competition ‘should’ be as opposed to what it is.

Competition is the struggle for the lion share of resources, where the strong get the most and the weak get little. Where the group as a whole gain, it is at the expense of those who do without. Where the weak gain charity, it is because the group is rich enough to spare it. Look to animals in nature, or plants, society or economics. It is all the same.

And as for the words of prophets? Nothing you have said has been anything remotely to do with teaching men to fish.

Rather you believe in giving them fish each day, and feeding them for the rest of their lives at the expense of others. And expecting corporations to do the fishing forever, for other people, for free.

You think that the single force driving the economy, profit, should somehow cease to be. This makes as much sense as deciding your car doesn’t need wheels, and still expecting it to drive you somewhere.

We have two choices.
-We can have corporations, poverty and charity.
-Or we can have no corporations, no poverty and no charity.

Why would having no corporations mean no poverty? Because we would all be equally suffering and destitute. Meaning no rich, and hence no poor.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive