Heres a slightly sickening fact for you; the top 15 billionaires in the world own collective, 1.5 times more than the poorest 48 countries. That is staggering, not just the same amount, but another half more. 15 men own more than 15 million(or however many) together. I’m pro-capatilism (i.e. not communist ;)) but thats slighlty ridiculous.
I agree with Cardinal that you get more happiness from doing what you want to do, not just having material things. The trouble is almost everything in the world involves money - you wanna adopt kids, they check you credit history et al. You want to buy some nice rural cottage and grow food, you’re gonna need money for everthing.
Making money is fine, becoming a billionaire is fine, but its the ones who do nothing with it, who hide away like they are exempt from the worlds problems. They’re the very people who should be leading the way.
In the UK every two years (correct?) we hold a comic relief event which usually raises 30-40 million pounds in one night, which is pretty fantastic. However in one week the worlds top footballers are paid collective almost 25 million. If for just one week they were persuaded to donate this think how much more they could do( and im just talking about footballers what about golf/basketball etc). A Lottery role over is usually 20 million.
The rich are getting richer because the poor are getting poorer.
bit of a ramble (how robert plant) but just my musings on the subject.
I feel it would be much better world if the assistance from the comparative billionaires went hand in hand with a little self-reliance from those in need of help.
Imagine how quickly poverty could be reduced when people without the means to have children made the conscience decision to stop having them.
These folks head up industries that employ lots of people and make the economy grow. They pay a bucket full of taxes (yeah, yeah, I know - tax cuts only benefit the wealthy and all that BS). More than that, they serve as examples of what we can do if we put our minds to it.
And if I had a billion dollars, I could justify it real easily - I worked my butt off to get it.
Eh, without concrete proposals, what am I to think? I should just posit your laundry list on the basis of “things could be better”? Nope, sorry, not gonna happen. I am glad, however, to see that you do have ideas on how to fix the problems!
Yeah, but that’s not what I meant. My full expectation is that, setting aside charity for the moment, Bill Gates has done more for the poor of the world merely by virtue of owning and running a successful company than I, as one of the faceless masses, do by being one of the faceless masses.
This would, indeed, be of inestimable benefit. First, of course, you’d need to get rid of the corrupt leaders who are stealing the funds intended for aid. But I see that you later propose to do this as well. Tell me, how many people are you going to lay off to fund all this?
Frankly, I’d be utterly stunned to hear that there aren’t such teams being funded as it is. The government funds all sorts of research of less pragmatic interest than this, and it would be surprising indeed to find that nowhere are there economist working on alternative models. Your billions would, I think, be better spent elsewhere, as far as this one is concerned.
Here, I have several comments.
[ol]
[li]Again, I rather suspect there are already such groups.[/li][li]In any event, I strongly suspect that this is vastly more easily said than done, even with your billions.[/li][li]Until you can solve the food/resource allocation problem, you aren’t going to solve the violence problem.[/li][li]On a personal level, I have to admit to some discomfort with the thought of some random person deciding the future of an entire country merely because he doesn’t have any use for its current incarnation. In fact, to be blunt, I think it’s hubris of no small order, no matter how laudable the goals, to decide to remake the world in your own image.[/li][/ol]
Feel quite happy to liberalize the media if you wish, but I’m not seeing how giving Joe Conason a TV slot is going to help the suffering people in Ethiopia any.
Oddly enough, the countries with the top 15 billionares also happen to have the highest standard of living and the most wealth. The problem is that the poorest 48 countries are unable to create that kind of wealth because they lack the resources, know-how and/or infrastructure.
Or you could go to the library and read up on some of the existing economic and social theories. A lot of this research has already been done. And it’s free!
So…your solution is to create a New World Order ruled by a secret consortium? First of all, does anyone see the irony in that? Second of all, I think you overestimate the purchase power of a few billion $$s. The war in Iraq cost BILLIONS. Do you think you could do that more cheaply?
Not a bad idea as long as you can make it profitable.
Four words - Soilant Green is people
just kidding
as I said before, you are just a billionaire. What makes you think you can accomplish all these goals when a nation with a GNP in the TRILLIONS can’t meet the needs of all it’s people?
Biggest problem is that you need to create a system that’s self-sustaining. Otherwise you will basically toss your money away for nothing, helping nobody in the long run.
Oh, puh-leeze. Oldest debating trick in the book. You dare the other guy to come up with a solution, then nitpick it, getting others to focus on its defects rather than the fact that you have diddly-squat, nada, nothing, zip to offer. Really, your position is that the huge inequities of wealth distribution in the modern world are just ducky, a very fine state of affairs, because you can’t possibly envision a better system for distributing wealth. I hope you will not find me unduly cynical if I suspect that is because you have absolutely no interest in doing so.
Yeah, but that’s not what I meant. My full expectation is that, setting aside charity for the moment, Bill Gates has done more for the poor of the world merely by virtue of owning and running a successful company than I, as one of the faceless masses, do by being one of the faceless masses.
Let me get this straight … you think Bill Gates got where he was because he wanted to employ people and do good works? See, it doesn’t count as goodness on his part unless its intentional. I believe it’s an unintentional byproduct of his enormous wealth. You will once again forgive me if I find myself suspecting that the money Gates and other billionaires put up for do-gooderness might be more effectively spent under a better system of wealth distribution.
This would, indeed, be of inestimable benefit. First, of course, you’d need to get rid of the corrupt leaders who are stealing the funds intended for aid.
Why do you think that? The history of most such interventions is that corrupt leaders are subsequently replaced by other equally corrupt leaders, or at least leaders who become equally corrupt over time. If it were just a matter of simplistically bumping off Generallisimo A to find Generallisimo B in power, I’d hire a bunch of total idjits to do it, like the CIA.
What’s needed is an understanding of how kleptocracies work and how to get under, around or through them. I’m not thinking about bumping people off or violent revolution. I’m thinking about subversion here. It may be that violent revolution is really the only way to get rid of a vicious dictator, but to me it is the choice of last resort.
** But I see that you later propose to do this as well. Tell me, how many people are you going to lay off to fund all this?**
About as many as Bill Gates laid off to fund his charitable acts.
Frankly, I’d be utterly stunned to hear that there aren’t such teams being funded as it is. The government funds all sorts of research of less pragmatic interest than this, and it would be surprising indeed to find that nowhere are there economist working on alternative models. Your billions would, I think, be better spent elsewhere, as far as this one is concerned.
There probably are people who are working on these problems, but not for anyone who would actually do anything about them. Where do you think I’d get my people?
BTW, the whole point of the kleptocracy research is to make sure that foreign aid by me, the U.S. govt, or anybody, gets implemented rather than pocketed by the wealthy. This would have a huge leveraging effect on the problems of hunger and disease. I am trying to use my paltry millions to make everybody else’s billions spend more effectively.
On a personal level, I have to admit to some discomfort with the thought of some random person deciding the future of an entire country merely because he doesn’t have any use for its current incarnation. In fact, to be blunt, I think it’s hubris of no small order, no matter how laudable the goals, to decide to remake the world in your own image.
Now you know how I feel about Richard Mellon Scaife.
**l quite happy to liberalize the media if you wish, but I’m not seeing how giving Joe Conason a TV slot is going to help the suffering people in Ethiopia any. **
Fact is, if the Repubs get a death grip on the media thanks to the recent FCC decision, and thus get a stranglehold on all three branches of government, only those ideas that agree with Repub ideology will be supported. To obtain governmental implementation of my ideas, I’m gonna need at least a certain amount of political balance.
I’m a billionaire. I hire people to become expert for me and give me good info.
So…your solution is to create a New World Order ruled by a secret consortium?
See previous response. First of all, does anyone see the irony in that? Second of all, I think you overestimate the purchase power of a few billion $$s. The war in Iraq cost BILLIONS. Do you think you could do that more cheaply?
Why do you guys always jump to war as the first option? I’d expect it from a guy like Dubya, but I thought people on the SDMB were supposed to be smart.
Four words - Soilant Green is people
Jonathan Swift said it all better than anybody else in “A Modest Proposal.” He was kidding, too.
**Biggest problem is that you need to create a system that’s self-sustaining. Otherwise you will basically toss your money away for nothing, helping nobody in the long run. **
[/QUOTE]
No, all I will have to do is demonstrate a workable solution to the problem of kleptocracy, or hunger or homelessness. A solution that REALLY worked would be like Viagra to governments all over the world. They’d get on the bus as fast as they could.
Question my motives all you want; you may be unsurprised to learn that I really couldn’t possibly even begin to care less about what you think of them. But of course, if you wish to criticize the status quo, it is incumbent upon you to offer a solution, lest your criticism be pointless. As I haven’t criticized the status quo, why would I be offering a proposal to change it? Seems a straightforward enough idea to me. But I’m weird that way.
As I said before: this is the worst of all systems, except all the others which have been tried. I take it for granted that it’s going to require someone smarter than me to find a better system; we have, after all, been working on distributing resources for millenia now. Because it will require someone smarter than me to find a better solution, I leave the economics research to the economists, just as they leave the physics research to me and my ilk.
In any event, until I have useful alternatives to offer, I’m not going to bitch and complain. Because as I said, to bitch and complain without offering a solution that’s an actual improvement is something in which I have no interest.
Of course, the current system, while not perfectly fair[sup]1[/sup], has created a great deal of improvement in the way things are. There’s a certain something to be said for not messing with That Which Works, even if you think it’s possible that there could be That Which Works Better, because if you’re wrong and TWWB turns out to be a total failure, you’ve just screwed over several billion people with your righteous idealism. Pardon me for wanting no part of it.
Conversely, if there is TWWB and we fail to try it because people stick with what they know, then we’ll have delayed helping everyone. This would certainly be a lamentable state of affairs, but at least I know that our current system has brought measurable, if slow, progress. Until I have good reason to suspect another system can bring measurable but faster progress, why would I want to endorse it? And until I have something to endorse, why would I suspect that there is something to endorse?
And you thought Kumbaya was a stretch! Oh my.
Where in the hell did I say that Bill Gates got where he was because he wanted to employ people and do good works? No where. And why no where? Because it’s not true! The fact remains, however, that by virtue of what he does, he in the long haul improves things for everyone. Is that why he’s doing it? No. Do his motives matter? Not particularly. Have you a shred of proof for your suspicions? Not that you’ve presented. Am I entitled to disregard statements without proof? As that is, after all, the way things work in my community, I feel quite comfortable doing that here as well.
Basically, because it’s rather substantially more efficient to work with the authorities than against them. If I’m sending $500 million in food to the poor people of Lower Starvatia, I’d prefer not to have to spend an additional ungodly chunk of change sneaking it across the border, bribing authorities, and whatnot. I take it for granted that, in the long run, the people of Lower Starvatia will be better off with a more humane leader. You know, like the ones you want to put in with your think tank? You haven’t forgotten that, have you?
Your first step, I think, is to put in a free goverment which respects the rights of its citizens, and until you can do that, you’re going to be wasting an awful lot of resources dodging El Generalissimo Mucho Oppressivo, Supreme Dictator of Lower Starvatia.
Hey, if you can do it, more power to you. Personally, I rather suspect that Changing The World would cost more than even Bill Gates has in petty cash, but hey, what do I know?
I suspect most of them are at universities and whatnot, actually, working for government or for various companies. And of course, if you can find a more efficient means of doing things than we do presently, don’t you think Bob the Billionaire is going to be interested? Anything to let him make his 37th billion!
That said, I gather that your plan is to turn your puny billions to use in taking over the US, ideologically speaking? And let our not-so-puny trillions try the experiment?
shrug Well, realistically, to obtain governmental implementation of your ideas, what you need is a fuckton of lobbyists and bigtime campaign donations, I think. I might suggest investing in those rather than in media. Not, mind you, that the media is powerless, but I rather suspect that you’re better off kissing Congressional butt than you are trying to educate the populace, if you want to get anything done. Call me a cynic.
[sup]1[/sup] And since when has life been fair, anyway? If life were fair, I would be one of the idle rich, with a supermodel on either arm. Am I? In strict point of fact, I’m neither idle nor rich, and all that I have on my arms at the moment is some hair and a rather patheticall uneven tan. Huh. Imagine that. Life wasn’t fair. Quel surprise!
Enough economics, let’s hear some more suggestions for how you would personally use and abuse the fact that you were (this deserves the caps) A FREAKIN’ BILLIONAIRE!
The serious guys can carry on their discussion of economic morality(?!?) perfectly well amidst a few suggestions for L5 microgravity bordellos and schemes to provide clean water across the whole of the African continent.
Oh, and Nuditization. That’d be my answer to Turner’s Colorization. Not so good for Citizen Kane, of course, but the technology’s there and I’m sure the idea has some market value.
Doesn’t matter. That’s the beauty of capitalism. It is not dependent on people’s generosity to distribute wealth.
That’s your perogative. I am simply suggesting that the subject has been researched considerably.
That’s generally the tried and true method for overthrowing a government that doesn’t have elections.
Define “workable”. We throw billions at all kinds of problems every year. There are plenty of idealistic people with means who take up their own pet projects. Just about all of them fail. Any solution that works has to be sustainable. It’s kind of like the old “teach a man to fish” cliche. Gates could feed a small African nation. Maybe for a couple of years. What happens after he runs out of cash?
What you would need to do is create a system of government in those countries that doesn steal all the money. You would need to create schools to create an educated and trained workforce and develop highways, factories and other infrastructure to take utilize the natural resources. You may need to completely rebuild the social fabric of the country - people don’t go from living in the bushes to being office workers overnight. If you’re lucky, you can turn the country into a productive, self-sustaining modern society.
Problem is that now you have basically become a colonialist.
yes friedo i know that, but thats comparing 2003 to 1900 or which ever random date you want, which is nonsense. Im studying human geography right now, and one section is development. In 1980 it cost a Kenyan farmer 8 tonnes of sugar to buy 1 tractor. Now in 2003 it costs 40 tonnes. This is due to among other things fluctuating prices, which of course are set by the MEDCs of the world.
Secondly the world bank and IMF are responsible for the loaning, and therefore subsequent recieveing of loan repayments from LEDCs. Thus it is due to their SAPs (structural adjustment policies) that LEDCs remain ‘tied’ to MEDCs as producers and suppliers of primary products because who in the western world will work menial jobs for low pay. So MEDCs have to thwart complete growth by crushing LEDCs with debts and repayments. This is highly controverstial i agree, but does make economic sense; im not saying its right but its clear evidence for why my statement
'The rich are getting richer because the poor are getting poorer
Jeesh, you think a billion is excess, what about my best friend who thinks 200k a year is over-board? One billion won’t even be a discussion for her. I think neither are too much, rather you can do ALOT w/ billions and thousands. Me, I want to be a pulmonologist (salary for pulm. = 200k/year) and donate alot of money to persons living in poverty. Oh, yeah, and start my own scholarship for women who are looking towards the science/medical field. Sounds a bit interesting, ha?
