World's wealthy worth $37.2 trillion and give <1% to charity

1…567911

Comments

  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I completely agree with you.

    Well, thank you :)
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CaterinaA wrote:
    Well, thank you :)

    There has to be some way we could use our resources to come up with something that actually works. If our government would put pressure on these countries to do right by their people instead of putting so much of our resources into power struggles, wars and pandering to the rich only maybe it could be solved.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Does that 1% include our taxes that go to social issues and the $ that goes to Social Security that I'll never see?

    I personally think you should give much more than that. You don't?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I'd want to continue to make the world a better place to live for us all. If I had the money I'd love to start a free daycare here in my small town so that these families could go to work and make a better life for themselves. And also the children would be in a better place than being left alone or not cared for properly. I've had this idea for the longest time. It has nothing to do with personal gain...it has to do with wanting to give and help out where I've noticed a problem. Surely this world isn't filled with people who only do great things for personal gain.

    i thought about this and i feel i not only left you with the wrong impression; but the wrong mindset. i set up research to find a cure for cancer. i fight insane government rules constantly and every penny comes out of my pocket. i can't get squat because i'm not a bloody minority. IF (and i stress if) i'm right; it would be a huge contribution to humanity. so instead of throwing money at a problem and feeling all grand because i did something good; i started a business who's contribution would be greater than money thrown at the problem.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I personally think you should give much more than that. You don't?

    I was merely asking for clarification on what you were including in that 1% minimum.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    cincybearcat wrote:
    I was merely asking for clarification on what you were including in that 1% minimum.

    I know you were. I was just wondering what your thoughts were. :)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    onelongsong wrote:
    i thought about this and i feel i not only left you with the wrong impression; but the wrong mindset. i set up research to find a cure for cancer. i fight insane government rules constantly and every penny comes out of my pocket. i can't get squat because i'm not a bloody minority. IF (and i stress if) i'm right; it would be a huge contribution to humanity. so instead of throwing money at a problem and feeling all grand because i did something good; i started a business who's contribution would be greater than money thrown at the problem.

    I agree that you just can't throw money at problems. We have to make sure these donations are or whatever way we contribute are actually part of a solution.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    There has to be some way we could use our resources to come up with something that actually works. If our government would put pressure on these countries to do right by their people instead of putting so much of our resources into power struggles, wars and pandering to the rich only maybe it could be solved.

    Yes of course, but I believe the OECD countries (developed ones, including the US of course) are making efforts in that direction. And the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) is investing a lot of time and resources into strenghtening democratic processes. There are lots of UNDP programs related to accountability, capacity building and governance, where they teach how to govern in an effective manner. From the most simple things, like how to operate a computer, how to manage a budget, how to use accounting programs, to how to be a leader and how to increase citizen's involvement in the decision-making process. Also how to gather accurate data and how to use to make the right decisions. These kind of programs, along with those related to fighting poverty, have become increasingly important in UNDP. Unfortunately this is a long process and it is a long term effort, so we won't be seeing the results soon. You have to take into consideration that most of these countries (those who are in the more vulnerable situation) also have serious lack of human resources.

    I did not want to sound overtly optimistic, there's much work to be done and we're very far from the desired results, but I see some trends in the right direction...
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    surferdude wrote:
    Good for you. But then I seriously doubt you take the risks necessary or put in the long hours and hard work necessary to change the world. When I look at what Bill Gates is doing to positively change the world and what your guilty conscious is stopping you from doing I can only think that the world needs more people like Bill Gates and less like you (and I).

    Interesting point.

    I am much like Chadwick in that I would not feel comfortable living in what we know as extravagance. More to the point, I do not have the desire. And because I do not have the desire, because living upper-middle-class is good enough for me, I do not create the wealth to be a true difference maker in the world. Not only do the rich create jobs, but they can (and I emphasize CAN) do good things with their money.

    It's not my guilt that prevents me from being Bill Gates, it's my lack of motivation of the almighty buck. I chose to get education that would lead to to comfort, but never to being filthy rich (and doing a job I like). I don't want to be rich. I have never wanted to be rich. Therefore, the only way I was going to be rich would have been if I could have developed a good change up to go with that 98 mph fastball (ha ha).

    All of this does not mean, however, that it is not too bad that there are people that choose to huddle around their money like misers, choose not to acknowledge that much of their wealth is made possible by the masses and do not feel that their good fortune (regardless of risk and work ethic, nobody get super rich without some good fortune) should lead them to "give something back." I really have no problem with people taking what they earned and having a nicer car and house than I (and I sure the hell have no class envy). I do think that you can have all of these things and more and still be charitable. I cannot even imagine being worth eight figures and dedicating my life to being worth nine--but I guess that's what separates "them" from "me".

    There are always anecdotes, but they are not all Bill Gates. Some people would treat their employees like shit if they thought they'd make a half a percent more revenue per year.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CaterinaA wrote:
    Yes of course, but I believe the OECD countries (developed ones, including the US of course) are making efforts in that direction. And the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) is investing a lot of time and resources into strenghtening democratic processes. There are lots of UNDP programs related to accountability, capacity building and governance, where they teach how to govern in an effective manner. From the most simple things, like how to operate a computer, how to manage a budget, how to use accounting programs, to how to be a leader and how to increase citizen's involvement in the decision-making process. Also how to gather accurate data and how to use to make the right decisions. These kind of programs, along with those related to fighting poverty, have become increasingly important in UNDP. Unfortunately this is a long process and it is a long term effort, so we won't be seeing the results soon. You have to take into consideration that most of these countries (those who are in the more vulnerable situation) also have serious lack of human resources.

    I did not want to sound overtly optimistic, there's much work to be done and we're very far from the desired results, but I see some trends in the right direction...

    I also see our govenments propping up The World Bank, IMF, NAFTA etc that are exploiting these countries and making matter much worse.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I also see our govenments propping up The World Bank, IMF, NAFTA etc that are exploiting these countries and making matter much worse.

    OK, yes the IMF totally lost its focus a long time ago. When it was founded after WWII its purpose was to be a last resource lender for countries in trouble, not to be a policy-maker. Same goes for the World Bank, when it was created (along with the IMF, that's why they're known as Bretton Woods institutionss) with the goal of provide cheap money to developing countries to build infrastructure and such. Both institutions need reforming, however I have to say that the WB has significantly changed its positions in the last five years regarding what to do to fight poverty and inequality. If you read their latest publications you'll see they're actually tackling both issues in serious manner. I am more forgiving towards the WB because not all they do is wrong (and I have to admit it I have good friends who are great people working there). The WB has been fundamental for statistics creation and training in plenty of developing countries, which is extremely important to design and execute public policy.

    About NAFTA (free trade agreement between USA, Canada and Mexico), well it has had positive effects too; for example, it has helped to create over a million jobs in Mexico since it started, it really gave a boost to Mexico's economy. I've even heard very-left wing Mexican economists and intellectuals saying so.

    I guess this is the part where we won't agree that much, see I'm not anti-trade, 'cause if trade agreements are properly designed and carried out they can actually benefit a country, the clearest examples are the countries from South Asia and Chile in Latin America.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CaterinaA wrote:
    OK, yes the IMF totally lost its focus a long time ago. When it was founded after WWII its purpose was to be a last resource lender for countries in trouble, not to be a policy-maker. Same goes for the World Bank, when it was created (along with the IMF, that's why they're known as Bretton Woods institutionss) with the goal of provide cheap money to developing countries to build infrastructure and such. Both institutions need reforming, however I have to say that the WB has significantly changed its positions in the last five years regarding what to do to fight poverty and inequality. If you read their latest publications you'll see they're actually tackling both issues in serious manner. I am more forgiving towards the WB because not all they do is wrong (and I have to admit it I have good friends who are great people working there). The WB has been fundamental for statistics creation and training in plenty of developing countries, which is extremely important to design and execute public policy.

    I'll read up on that. Thanks. :)
    CaterinaA wrote:
    About NAFTA (free trade agreement between USA, Canada and Mexico), well it has had positive effects too; for example, it has helped to create over a million jobs in Mexico since it started, it really gave a boost to Mexico's economy. I've even heard very-left wing Mexican economists and intellectuals saying so.

    I guess this is the part where we won't agree that much, see I'm not anti-trade, 'cause if trade agreements are properly designed and carried out they can actually benefit a country, the clearest examples are the countries from South Asia and Chile in Latin America.

    I've seen a lot on the net and read also that these countries just aren't doing better off since NAFTA and the poor are still living in slums. I'm not anti-trade either, I'm pro-fair trade.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I'll read up on that. Thanks. :)

    Here's a couple of links :)http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2006/0,,menuPK:477658~pagePK:64167702~piPK:64167676~theSitePK:477642,00.html
    http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocByUnid/4112F1114F594B4B85256DB3005DB262?Opendocument
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I've seen a lot on the net and read also that these countries just aren't doing better off since NAFTA and the poor are still living in slums. I'm not anti-trade either, I'm pro-fair trade.

    Yes, there's plenty of Mexicans living of slums still, but I don't think it like that due to NAFTA. There's plenty of bad politics involved in that; Mexico has serious corruption issues. However if you look at statistics you'll see that Mexico's poverty rate has decreased in the past decade. Population in poverty situation for 1989 was: 47.7% while for 2005 was: 35.5%. Of course it is a lot, but there's been improvement. (Source: http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/xml/0/27480/PSE2006_Cap1_Pobreza.pdf)

    However, I'm confused 'cause NAFTA only includes Mexico, USA and canada. Perhaps, you're thinking about CAFTA, which is the trade agreement between USA and Central America, that has not entered into effect yet and I'm not sure if it will, 'cause if I'm not mistaken Bush's Fastrack powers to pass such legislation are about to expire, or have already expired, and with a Democratic Congress I don't see the Fastrack being renovated... Anyways, CAFTA is very tricky 'cause it could be either the salvation or the final shot for Central America.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CaterinaA wrote:
    Here's a couple of links :)http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2006/0,,menuPK:477658~pagePK:64167702~piPK:64167676~theSitePK:477642,00.html
    http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocByUnid/4112F1114F594B4B85256DB3005DB262?Opendocument



    Yes, there's plenty of Mexicans living of slums still, but I don't think it like that due to NAFTA. There's plenty of bad politics involved in that; Mexico has serious corruption issues. However if you look at statistics you'll see that Mexico's poverty rate has decreased in the past decade. Population in poverty situation for 1989 was: 47.7% while for 2005 was: 35.5%. Of course it is a lot, but there's been improvement. (Source: http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/xml/0/27480/PSE2006_Cap1_Pobreza.pdf)

    However, I'm confused 'cause NAFTA only includes Mexico, USA and canada. Perhaps, you're thinking about CAFTA, which is the trade agreement between USA and Central America, that has not entered into effect yet and I'm not sure if it will, 'cause if I'm not mistaken Bush's Fastrack powers to pass such legislation are about to expire, or have already expired, and with a Democratic Congress I don't see the Fastrack being renovated... Anyways, CAFTA is very tricky 'cause it could be either the salvation or the final shot for Central America.

    I'm bringing up NAFTA in regards to the slums in mexico. I'm talking about the free trade practices we've used in the past with nations in central america.

    http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0415-01.htm
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    I cannot even imagine being worth eight figures and dedicating my life to being worth nine--but I guess that's what separates "them" from "me".
    One other thing that seperates "them" from "me", I doubt they spend much time telling others that they should be giving away more of their money and wealth.

    They've decided what's important to them and they've worked for that. Now you tell them they should give it away. How would you feel if others were telling you to part with what you feel is important and have worked for. "Spouse and kids, give 'em to those who don't have any. If not you're greedy. You've had years of being surrounded by love, it's time to buck up and give it to the less fortunate."
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I'm bringing up NAFTA in regards to the slums in mexico. I'm talking about the free trade practices we've used in the past with nations in central america.

    http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0415-01.htm

    OK, OK. I thought for a second you were saying that NAFTA was also involved other Central American countries. I'm reading the article about Mexico...

    What I fail to see is what the article about Chile has to do with it. Anyways I'll have to say that the person who wrote that article should really check his facts, 'cause there are very few Chileans that will agree with his statements about Allende and especially about his economic achievements. The man's single success was to bankrupt a country in a less than three years. In Chile he's almost as hated as Pinochet...
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    surferdude wrote:
    One other thing that seperates "them" from "me", I doubt they spend much time telling others that they should be giving away more of their money and wealth.

    They've decided what's important to them and they've worked for that. Now you tell them they should give it away. How would you feel if others were telling you to part with what you feel is important and have worked for. "Spouse and kids, give 'em to those who don't have any. If not you're greedy. You've had years of being surrounded by love, it's time to buck up and give it to the less fortunate."


    that's quite a jump there evel knievel.......how does one equate giving away superfluous wealth with giving away your children?....:confused:
  • CaterinaA
    CaterinaA Posts: 572
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I'm bringing up NAFTA in regards to the slums in mexico. I'm talking about the free trade practices we've used in the past with nations in central america.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0415-01.htm

    Well, the article is a little old (from 2001). Anyways, the thing with Mexico is there are huge disparities inside the country and I believe that some areas have improved more than others. Some of the border towns are still the poorest of the country. So, it is very likely that if you disagregate the poverty rate by cities there will be differences.

    Anyways, there's been an increase in Mexico's social expenditure, especially in social programs for the more vulnerable groups, and considering the trend of the poverty rate they may be paying off. Although I'll admit it's been more than a year since I last studied Mexico's data in public policy in detail so I would really need to study to give you what I'd feel would be a responsible opinion on the issue :).

    Caterina
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    cutback wrote:
    that's quite a jump there evel knievel.......how does one equate giving away superfluous wealth with giving away your children?....:confused:
    It's being told to give away something that is important to you, and if you don't you're jealous and don't care for others. To you it's superfluous wealth, I'm sure they don't view it that way.

    I have way more empathy, compassion and caring for the person living without love than without money.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • chadwick
    chadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    surferdude wrote:
    Good for you. But then I seriously doubt you take the risks necessary or put in the long hours and hard work necessary to change the world. When I look at what Bill Gates is doing to positively change the world and what your guilty conscious is stopping you from doing I can only think that the world needs more people like Bill Gates and less like you (and I).

    Hours worked, hardly ever have I worked a 40 hour week.
    This is a fact, I could not tell you about working a 40 hr week.
    I could not tell you about a 9-5 time clock gig.
    My job wont change the entire world.
    But I and the rest of us affect it hugely.
    As a truck-driver I can tell you about a double 40 hour week.
    Yes, 80-100 hrs a week is what I have done for a long, long-time.
    Legally 70 hours a week is the limit.
    Also, my newset gig, I am a first time author.
    My book is due out in like 6-8 weeks.
    People can change the world without having extravagance.
    Some ppl do not do a fuckin thing for the better of mankind
    and they are extravagant.
    Doesn't mean they are liable because of wealth.
    It does mean they are gluttonous.
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."
    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce

Categories