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

I love this world and the lives on it.
All lives, not just human lives.
I have changed my life in extreme ways.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It's been a bit since I've read up on these particulars myself and even then I don't get into it anywhere close to the way you must. Economics isn't my thing to say the least. I only force myself to read about these things because I care and need to know what's going on. Give me philsophy any day. Yeah, it was an old article I just didn't feel like digging. You obviously know a lot about economic policy whereas with me it's in one ear and out the other and so damn dry. I'll just have to take what you've said as a well informed opinion and read up some more. Cheers

Nevermind the date of the article, just pointing that things could have changed. Sorry, if I sounded too much like an economist, sometimes I can't help it since I am one; even though for the past 2 years I've been surrounded by sociologists in my job

Cheers to you too
Caterina

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That is interesting. I can't give you the percent I give. Hell, I don't even keep a balanced check book. I've never been good with keeping track of money. I will say I live pretty simply and don't splurge too often at all. I even buy used clothes at thrift shops often, hand wash my dishes and save plenty of other ways that help me be able to give more and pay my bills. It's not cheap to live here either.

Hopefully you didn't think my point was to question your charity. I think it's wrong to question anyone's charity.

The point of the link was to demonstrate that ALL of us on here are wealthy.

I personally think that until you're living on rice and beans, sleeping only the bare minimum and spending the rest of your hours donating your money and time to help others less fortunate, then you have NO BUSINESS questioning others' giving habits.

I'm definitely no where close to that myself.

know1 wrote:

Hopefully you didn't think my point was to question your charity. I think it's wrong to question anyone's charity.

The point of the link was to demonstrate that ALL of us on here are wealthy.

I personally think that until you're living on rice and beans, sleeping only the bare minimum and spending the rest of your hours donating your money and time to help others less fortunate, then you have NO BUSINESS questioning others' giving habits.

I'm definitely no where close to that myself.

even if you do that you have no business questioning others giving habits. not to mention you won't have time.

The issue here is not really about expecting people to give away their wealth. The issue is the system through which this wealth distributed.

El_Kabong wrote:

another part of nafta and similar agreements is say canada has a certain environmental law, can't a us or mexican (the 3 countries are interchangeable throughout) can sue for lost profits? and now wanting to open the highway up to truckers from mexico and canada straight through?? well a toll road, but still....

Hi, I'm not sure I understand your question...anyway, if you're asking me if a member of NAFTA can sue another one, the answer is I don't know, I would have to read the agreement (which I did while I was at the University, but that was in 1996). However, I might add that since NAFTA is a trade agreement (unlike say the European Union) negotiations are bilateral: each pair of countries has an agreement (USA with Canada; Mexico with USA; and Mexico with Canada). Of course there is a broad common ground for the 3 countries but I really couldn't tell about the suing part and neither about the road.

El_Kabong wrote:

have any countries come out of debt after having to deal w/ the world bank or imf?

Yes some have, for instance Argentina and Brasil cancelled their entire debts with the IMF last year.

Just to clarify something (which I hope won't be interpreted as a defense of the Bretton Woods institutions, because I seriously consider both need major reforms). Usually when countries have to resort to either the IMF or the WB it is because any other credit possibilities have been exhausted. See, not all public debt is foreign debt, in many countries the large share of their public debt has been locally ontracted. So, while the IMF and the WB are at fault, especially the IMF for trying to dictate public policy whitout taking into account the particular traits, the context and political environment of each country (the IMF used to have a basic pack of measures to be implemented) countries have some responsabilities as well for mis-managing resources, at least that's the case for Latin America.

Anyway, sometimes countries have to contract debt to engage in major investments, the problem is when debt payments are unsustainable, which was the case of some Central America countries (i.e. Nicaragua) and African countries, which were part of the Highly Endebted Countries, but their foreign debts have been condoned. Why debt becomes unsustainable (when public debt represents a large share of a country's GDP), reasons are almost infinite, but in most cases there's usually an irresponsible government involved.

I'm not sure if I've answered properly your questions; if I haven't please let me know

Caterina

hsewif wrote:

ya know... you could make this happen. Just because you don't personally have the money doesn't mean that it can't be done.

There would be lots of begging and pounding the pavement but it doesn't seem impossible. Could you find someone to donate the space for a year? A local strip mall that is having vacancy issues? (it could be a big write-off for them) Exactly how small is your town? Is it close to a large town? Do you know anyone involved in fundraising? maybe you could talk to FoxyMop about getting Wishlist on board. I read on their website that they donated over 45,000. to NWCCFA from the profits of those pick shirts... would 45 grand cover a years expenses?

Lot's of questions but it seems like a great cause. I posted a link about how people are more willing to give when they trust the person in charge and they know exactly how their money is being used. I wonder what the costs would be for something like that...

Thanks for all the info.

hsewif wrote:

Are you going to try?

My daughter did a huge project at school on an Illinois woman named Ellen Gates Starr... her involvement with Jane Addams on something called Hull House here in Chicago back in 1889.

They did amazing things, turning nothing into something.

google it, its right up your alley.

let me know if you get something off the ground... I will send you some $.

I wish I could and I'll keep this in mind but there's just other personal issues right now (some big ones) that would keep this from happening at the moment.

Thank you again. That was very nice of you to show so much interest.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619538,00.html

Why We Should Share the Wealth
By Jeffrey Sachs

What is the power of one when that one happens to be a John D. Rockefeller or a Bill Gates? If history is a guide, the answer is, quite a lot. I'm speaking not only about the power to reshape an industry like oil or personal computers but also about the ability to improve the world through philanthropy. Rockefeller proved that giving away money is much more than charity. It can be transformative. And if today's billionaires were to pool their resources, they could outflank the world's governments in ending poverty and pandemic disease.

A century ago, Rockefeller decided to put his vast fortune to public use, offering to endow a federal institution to fight disease, poverty and ignorance. Hotheads attacked him, claiming that he was just trying to buy a good name, and Congress demurred. So, instead, in 1913, Rockefeller set up the Rockefeller Foundation with two initial gifts totaling $100 million. No institution did more in the 20th century to further the cause of international development. It led the way in the eradication of hookworm in the U.S. South, helping pave the way for the region's economic development. It supported the Nobel-prizewinning work that created the yellow-fever vaccine. It helped Brazil eliminate a malaria-transmitting strain of mosquito. And perhaps most stunningly, it funded the Asian Green Revolution, the transformative agricultural success that enabled India and other countries to escape endless cycles of famine and poverty.

Now Bill and Melinda Gates, backed by more than $30 billion of their own funds and an additional $31 billion of Warren Buffett's, can do the same. Like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation rightly looks to technology for the breakthroughs that can end extreme poverty on a global basis. Its original focus has been on health technologies, but now the foundation is expanding to agriculture, water and other areas that are also critical in the fight against poverty.

Of course, Bill and Melinda Gates are not alone in contemporary transformative philanthropy. George Soros' support for brave truth tellers in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union helped catalyze the peaceful end of communism. The Google guys, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are out to prove how information technologies can bring about major change. They have recently posted satellite imagery of Darfur, Sudan, in order to raise awareness and technical support for solutions in that violence-ravaged region. The dynamism of social entrepreneurship makes a mockery, alas, of our political leadership. The Gateses, Buffett, Soros, Page and Brin have left George W. Bush and the rest of Washington in the dust. U.S. international aid is at a pitiful 0.17% of national income (just 17¢ per $100), with much of that squandered as failed "reconstruction aid" in Iraq.

According to Forbes magazine, there are some 950 billionaires in the world, with an estimated combined wealth of $3.5 trillion. Even after all the yachts, mansions and luxury living that money can buy have been funded many times over, these billionaires will still have nearly $3.5 trillion to change the world. Suppose they pooled their wealth, as Buffett has done with Bill and Melinda Gates. By standard principles of foundation management, a $3.5 trillion endowment would have a 5% payout of about $175 billion a year, an amount sufficient to extend basic health care to all in the poorest world; end massive pandemics of AIDS, TB and malaria; jump-start an African Green Revolution; end the digital divide; and address the crying need for safe drinking water for 1 billion people. In short, this billionaires' foundation would be enough to end extreme poverty itself. All in all, it's not a bad gig for men and women who have transcended the daily economic struggle faced by the rest of humanity. They might also take note of the admonition of America's first megaphilanthropist, Andrew Carnegie, who wrote in 1889 that "the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free for him to administer during life, will pass away unwept, unhonored, and unsung." Fortunately, plenty of new heroes seem ready for a different legacy.

Collin wrote:

I wouldn't. But if a homeless person came to my house and asked for my help, I'd let him in, let him clean up, give him some of my clothes and cook him a meal and let him sleep in the guest room. And I'd do a lot more

Right, and that's exactly why we should leave this up to private initiative.