The world's seven richest men could wipe out global poverty

[Inoculator9]

Asking hypothetical questions like that serve no constructive purpose, what matters is what should be done, and whether or not they'll do it isn't the point. Maybe we'll all discover what bastards we are later on, but until than, advocating alternatives is the best we can do.

[danielsh]

STill I think it is a lot easier to say these things,and that we dont know what we would do if weactually had the money.

We should never have the money to begin with. What makes Bill Gates entitled to $98 billion? What does he contribute to society? One of the most weak and vulnerable operating systems ever to be written, a whole load of stress (as a result of the OS), and a handful of other poor products. Even the occasional good product doesn't justify a net worth like that. Really, what has he actually done to make the world better? Point to something and say, "This is better because of Bill Gates." Then prove to me that he had no ulterior motive, as when he donates a number of Windows computers to a school system.

But again, I use Gates as an example. What makes any man entitled to such wealth? I do not think that anyone is entitled to have so much more than everyone else. It doesn't matter what any one of us would do with that money. It matters that a select few men have taken control of our global economy and unjustly acquired enough money to literally cure poverty. Clearly, it isn't impossible to solve the problems of the world. These men are just standing in our way.

[Inoculator9]

We should never have the money to begin with. What makes Bill Gates entitled to $98 billion? What does he contribute to society? One of the most weak and vulnerable operating systems ever to be written, a whole load of stress (as a result of the OS), and a handful of other poor products. Even the occasional good product doesn't justify a net worth like that. Really, what has he actually done to make the world better? Point to something and say, "This is better because of Bill Gates." Then prove to me that he had no ulterior motive, as when he donates a number of Windows computers to a school system.

Here, here! If Microsoft stuff wasn't crap I might not mind as much :P

[Wolf]

He isn't entitled, yet he got it anyway. So, my question is this; if a man has wealth that he is not entitled to have, should we take it away from him? By force, if necessary? I do not think one can say that a man is not entitled to simply having wealth, since all human beings desire wealth. There is more than enough food on this planet to sustain everyone, but not nearly enough to satisfy them. There is a difference between sustenance and satisfaction, and we should only demand scrutiny of those who are wealthy if some people cannot be sustained. Otherwise, we cannot, and we should not, limit the freedom of some individuals to pursue personal wealth.

[SurlyPIG]

But remember that a great part of their money is invested. Thus, using the money would take the jobs.

This is the smartest thing that has been said in this thread.  Virtually all of the fortune of these people is invested in ventures, and if they were suddenly to sell all of their assets, a) somebody else would have to buy them (and nobody has that much money, and even if they did, it would also be invested because it's not like they're just stuffing it into a mattress) and b) it would probably cause an economic collapse.

[TMA_1]

good point egeides, and thanks for pointing that out ace. I still see where people come from in saying that no person is intitled to such riches, still though egeides is right that it isnt just his money, in fact millioins of others own almost half of the microsoft stock, and many of them are rich as well. It isnt as simple as I said.

Not only this, it is important to ask these questions so that people will not get big heads. If somebody just talks and doesnt think about what they are saying, what good point is there to say anything?

[Dude_Doc]

The thing is that I want to see results. I want guaranty that my money goes to these 100 people in Africa, so that they can build a house for themselves, so that they can get clean water and basic health care when needed.

I don't see this. What I see is that my money goes to some greedy rebel leader or president, who wouldn't give a rat's ass about his people and his surroundings. That is a problem for me.

[danielsh]

Matt, the problem is that those individuals of whom you speak must pursue wealth by decreasing the wealth of others. In order to do so most effectively, they must also exploit and oppress others. If they manage to pursue wealth without exploitation and abuse, then they create a system which condones---no, encourages---same. My right to swing my fist should not extend to the noses of others. If a man accumulates wealth unjustly, then yes, we should take it from him. Do we let jewel thieves keep their diamonds? Do we let bank robbers keep their cash?

We're talking about the proper use of personal wealth here, and how Bill Gates spends his money does not affect Microsoft stock.

[Wolf]

"If they manage to pursue wealth without exploitation and abuse, then they create a system which condones---no, encourages---same."

Please explain.

[danielsh]

If one CEO does business in accordance with the highest of scruples, conducts himself ethically, treats his workers well, etc, etc, then he may just do well. But when another CEO realizes that he can make more money than the first by being unscrupulous, unethical, and cruel, he will do better. And when another CEO realizes that he can make even more money by being less scrupulous, less ethical, and more cruel, he will do still better. And so on and so on. Moral men will still exist, but the amoral ones will multiply. Each will pursue his own self-interest at any cost. Before long, we'll have hard-core capitalism.

[me=Dan]shudders.[/me]

[Wolf]

So, you're saying that ethics breeds corruption?

I disagree. I would say that if a CEO conducts himself morally well, and makes that known to the public, he can do better than the unscrupulous man because his image is untarnished, and other businesses appreciate his ethical and trustworthy business practices. A business known for corruption is sometimes considered a pariah in the business world, and may never be dealt with. On the other hand, you might argue that a business that has a good image encourages other business to publish false images. This may fool the public, but certainly not the economists. Businesses that spend too much cultivating a false image cannot divert resources towards making profit, and ultimately do not do as well as the business with the genuinely good image.

[Edric O]

The reason why I posted this statistic was to counter conservative claims that the rich somehow "earned" their immense wealth.

Of course, you may claim that some people's work is more valuable than other people's work - that is a reasonable assumption. But no one can possibly claim that the difference is large enough to justify this insanely unequal distribution of wealth.

Obviously, the rich receive a lot of money which they did not earn. This is empirical proof for the existence of capitalist exploitation.

And what should be done about it? Well, simply confiscating money from the rich and distributing it to the poor is not a solution. It helps alleviate the symptoms of the disease, but without attacking the root cause. Rather than allowing theft and then confiscating some of the stolen goods and giving them back to their rightful owners, we should prevent theft from happening in the first place. This is where socialism (public ownership over the means of production) comes in.

[Terror]

Hmmm, this is just put waaaaay too simple.

You can spend billions of dollars in a country and never see it back... only in the form of guns and destroyed houses...

example:

A friend of mine, who lives in the Nehterlands now but came from Afghanistan when he was 13 told me the following story:

My neighbour was rich, he build a big house once, it was huge you know. Filled with great furniture and a pool etc. it looked awesome. But then, when it was finished, it was only 1 day old there was a fight in the streets nearby and someone fired a rocket at the house.... 1 second, and the entire house was turned into a ruin... now THERE's where your money goes to.

Send as much money to the poor countries as you want. There are countries in the middle east that are so rich that they don't know what to do with the money... so they make huge hotels, racing tracks, golf courses etc. .

I'm not saying that by sending money you won't help anyone. But remember that most of the money that you send will come in the wrong hands, and you can't do anything about it.

Do you think that using the money on the war campaign in Iraq was better used by sending it to the people in Iraq so that they can raise their standards? NO, it won't help shit. Iraq was/is a rich country. It could be wealthier than any European country but as long as it is as corrupt as it is now, and the people don't want anything to change all those billions of dollars will go to waste.

Also, ofcourse rich people have so much money and don't know what to do with it, they could give it to charities and help other people like any other moral person would.... so they say. I could even do that. I live in a rich country, make more money a day than an adult mineworker in Poland but it is rediculous to demand from us to give money.

People need to WANT make things better. If the government tries, if the people try raising the level of wealth, and fulfilling the primary needs is not so hard at all. But so often it just doesn't work because people don't want to change, they don't want to lose their ideas and most often of all, the government just doesn't realy want anything to change.

[Edric O]

Rene, the majority of people DO want to change things. They DO want to pull themselves out of poverty and misery. The problem is that in most 3rd world countries, the government doesn't really care what the people want. It's the tiny powerful majority at the top who wishes to preserve the status quo, and who tries to steal the money coming from international aid.

The point was that the 7 richest people in the world have enough money to end world hunger - if that money is used properly, of course.

[Terror]

Ok if statistics prove that, fine. That's all good and well. But saying that the rich people should give money to these poor people so that noone will starve of hunger anymore is not working yet thus.

but now i've got a few points.

So you say, we should get rid of that minority that holds all power and prevents the poor people from getting any better.

1. How to remove this minority? We can't force them through war like what happened in Iraq, as first there is tons of demonstrations against the war as it is only for the worse of the people, even though people probably suffered more under Saddam's but that just wasn't put on the screen.

2. We can't give the governments money under their promise that they will use it to raise the peoples standards, that's what is happening now and you see how well that works..

3. Let's say the minority that holds the rest from getting better is removed, and a "good" government has been installed. When we have come this far, they probably won't realy need any aid anymore because then people will usually be able to support themselves.

These are quite major points, and realy are an issue. You see, i'm not mr. war, i don't want people to die through violence. But i do think that getting rid of regimes like in Iraq can NOT be done with simple threats or restrictions. And like i said, Iraq is such a rich country, it has resources everywhere, but through the old regime they didn't use it right. The elite was incredibly rich, and the poor were incredibly poor, not to forget that their lives were always unsure, you've heard how many people have been murdered under saddam's regime...

People did die, people still die at the moment in Iraq because of the war, but if this problem can be solved this way, i would say that it would be the right choice. It will be hard for those people, for perhaps years to come, but it WILL get better, if done right ofcourse. There was no such future under the old regime. Ofcourse it is kind of impossible to speak for them living in a rich and *safe* country my self. But i know that many Iraqi people in the Netherlands also wanted the US to push through, and break this regime, make an end to it. And that i think is where the US is best at... they CAN do it.

If people would only be willing to unite and help each other....

[emprworm]

[snip nonsense]

In every single country where poor people exist, you will also find there exists a corrupt government with funds available to feed them.

[SurlyPIG]

The point was that the 7 richest people in the world have enough money to end world hunger - if that money is used properly, of course.

Correction:

The 7 richest people in the world have enough *ASSETS* that, if they could be magically converted into spendable money, could end world hunger, at least temporarily.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Correction:

The 7 richest people in the world have enough *ASSETS* that, if they could be magically converted into spendable money, could end world hunger, at least temporarily.

excellent point.

unfortunately people will always be hungry

:-

[Terror]

yeah... shit happens, where do they need food for anyway.... tsssh  ;)

[Edric O]

In every single country where poor people exist, you will also find there exists a corrupt government with funds available to feed them.

Poor people exist in every country on Earth. Starving people exist in just about every country in Africa, almost every country in South and Central America, most countries in Asia...

People are starving in more than 100 countries worldwide, Emprworm. The majority of all countries on Earth have problems with hunger and outright starvation. Are you saying that ALL those countries would have enough money to feed everyone, if only their governments were a little less corrupt? Are you saying that the greatest humanitarian challenge of our times is only due to a bunch of guys with over-inflated Swiss bank accounts?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

All those poor countries need a change of government alright. But it needs to go deeper than just replacing old government officials with new ones. The whole system is bankrupt, and the whole system needs to change. How many more people need to die before you realize that global capitalism simply CAN'T solve the problem of world hunger?

[alchemi2]

If poor countries spent less money on weapons and more on building up their infastructures then perhaps hunger and poverty could be tackled but they contsantly make war upon themselves, destroying what economy and infastructure they have.

Taking aidworkers hostage is no way to gain further help. >:(

And how much of your income each month do you give away to these worthwhile charities 75% 50% 20% less zero. OH i know he can afford it so he should give it all, of course then he wouldn't have it to give again and lets face it all of us would give up everything we own in a flash to make other peoples lives better even if it made ours slightly worse.

[darkd3th]

The way I feel is that , its their money they may do as they please . It sounds like you guys are trying to make everyone equal , if everyone wanted to be equal america would be a communist country .

[Edric O]

If poor countries spent less money on weapons and more on building up their infastructures then perhaps hunger and poverty could be tackled but they contsantly make war upon themselves, destroying what economy and infastructure they have.

Actually, the number of wars between 3rd world countries in the past 50 years can be counted on the fingers of two hands. Most wars you hear about are civil wars, usually fought with rudimentary weapons. Civil wars are pretty cheap. With a few exceptions (like North Korea), 3rd world countries don't really spend too much on their military. Many of them never went through any wars (civil or otherwise) at all.

Taking aidworkers hostage is no way to gain further help. >:(

Well, the people who take aid workers hostage are NOT the people who needed the help, but I see your point. Of course 3rd world countries aren't safe. When people face starvation, they can be driven to crime as a last resort to stay alive.

And how much of your income each month do you give away to these worthwhile charities 75% 50% 20% less zero. OH i know he can afford it so he should give it all, of course then he wouldn't have it to give again and lets face it all of us would give up everything we own in a flash to make other peoples lives better even if it made ours slightly worse.

If the world's 7 richest people donated their wealth to charity, they wouldn't need to donate anything again, since global poverty would be eradicated.

But they can't donate ALL their wealth, of course (for practical reasons among other things), and you can expect things to go wrong with the distribution of all that money, so let's say the world's 20 richest men could wipe out global poverty. Or let's be even more generous and say the world's 50 richest men could do it. The point remains the same: A tiny handful of extremely rich men are so wealthy that they could eradicate global poverty if they wished.

[Edric O]

The way I feel is that , its their money they may do as they please .

Is it really? Have you ever considered how those people actually got that money in the first place? The first thing that you should notice if you really think they "earned" it is that the math just doesn't add up: There are some people whose personal fortunes are greater than the budgets of entire countries. Do you truly believe that one man can do as much work as tens of millions of other people put together?

The answer is obviously NO, and the conclusion is that the super-rich made their vast fortunes largely from other people's money. So how did that happen, and who does the money rightfully belong to? Well, the money belongs to their workers, and as for how the rich acquired it, read this topic.

It sounds like you guys are trying to make everyone equal , if everyone wanted to be equal america would be a communist country .

Well, yeah... that's the point... ;D

[Wolf]

Good call on that last one, Edric, :) To be honest, while I still like the spirit of equality that comes with communism, I am still unsure of how it works in economic (and, in some cases, moral terms). Perhaps this is because I am learning economics in a capitalist system? I would appreciate any basic rundown of how communism is a beneficial system in economic terms.