150...........

nonsense it's simply a matter of priorities, improving one's own region or letting it slide in favor of areas that will never benefit those footing the bill even tangentially in any way whatsoever.

at least a few more trolls.
its amazing how every conversation on this board devolves into the usual trolls stomping through the thread with their 3rd grade intellect.

Obviously these two guys (bill and warren) have done exceptional work for the US economy, and have pumped trillions of dollars into the nation. If they want to take their personal fortunes (and leave their companies making tons still, btw) I can't see it as that bad.

Why can't americans see beyond their borders? Of course there are problems in the USA, but nobody here thought about that shit when they bought their last fast car, did they? You guys can be self sustaining, but everyone is too selfish. The rich people can always pay for the poor people, but why? It's not sustainable either, of course.

So if you can't pay the poor people to not be poor anymore (give a man a fish, eat for a day, teach him how to fish...) then where should that money be spent? I think squashing malaria in africa is pretty noble of them.

There are no "priorities" to consider when the issue is a matter of funding a music project or feeding the starving or fighting disease.

It never was the case that responsible charity/investing is intended to benefit those footing the bill. That's why it's called charity.

it's funny how you always resort to ad hominem attacks.

He's giving the money to Gates' foundation, you don't think what they actually have done or do is relevant? lol.

That's where there is massive communication problem. Other nations contribute globally without bullshit and "self". One of the prime countries to do this is Denmark, who put all other nations to shame. They also do it thru a well-organized framework to provide max benefit. The pro-rata "giving" by both the Dutch people and the government exceeds all other nations.

On self-sustaining.. the ideal is that investment/charity into other nations who are actually in need of it, is that it is self-sustaining and, as much as possible, be the creator of local industry and a source of employment. There is a more urgent level in scenarios where people will be dead the following morning unless they get food to carry them thru.

Of all western countries, unfortunately the US is the least "self sustaining" in that it has never produced a trade surplus since the 60's, has only two areas which do return a trade surplus - wheat and arms. There is obviously a great lack of manufactuing ability or service industry which is competitively "exportable" to other nations to help resolve the massive trade imbalance.

In addition... and a flip side, the US continues to consume 25% of world resources, tho only contains less than 5% of world population. This is also reflected in international borrowings from other nations - in the average region of $10 bill/day. Basically, overall - the US is totally unstainable and it's only a matter of time before this gets severe.

It is rare for any government to take the lead and have the strength to actively address issues of poverty and disease outside their own jurisdiction, - the problem is more than they could handle. However, nations have combined as partners in addressing this - and currently operational in the field in practical terms.

Highlighting of the "third world" has been more the realm of inviduals with a voice. That may be Richard Branson, Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, several world leaders and a few ex-world leaders - sometimes combined with a PR celeb face. All have to be commended for raising this issue.

As to how they or their management teams decide to spend incoming revenue is their decision. The issue is addressing global problems not how to feather their own back yard. It is also the case that it involves considerable resources in effectively implementing aid to address both the urgent scenario (people dying of starvation) to the more sustainable side. (There is little hope in hell of anyone on GFY having a clue on this).

It is extemely difficult to establish, effectively a sustainable infrastructure when starting from nothing. Example, a friend returned last year from a period in another country with the brief - "establish as much sustainable infrastructure as possible to kill poverty". He had an unlimited budget from a group of countries. Tho he is only one man - he found it very hard to create an enviorment that is sustainable (tho he's a well-qualified "sustainer"). Eventually he resorted to base level commerical activity with the local population - very willing and eager to make it all work. He could not dispense much funding - the basic stuff cost very little in relative terms, - but that was enough to sow the seed of hope for many people, - and they are apparently progressing well locally with the projects he did start. Bottom line - it's not just the money. It needs a viable framework to put this to use and create "sustainabilty". Governments have little clue or expertise in this area - they can hardly manage their own backyards without a fuckup (Katrina?).

And OK.. got to admit, what you are seeing on this thread may appear to show the US as a "selfish" nation. I'm sure you are seeing little more than pampered spoilt brats and others with dogma attached. The US people are no different to anywhere else - tho their may be a lack of communication/education into the realities of the rest of the world.

Got nothing but praise for anyone.. whether Buffett, Branson or an ex-world leaders who take time out to address global poverty and disease. What nations they come from is irrelevant. It is further admirable that they have taken time out to even think of this issue and highlight it - whether they have personal fortunes or otherwise.

No, that is exactly what charity is. Improving one's surroundings by giving to others less fortunate in the community.

What you are describing is giving to others simply because you believe they somehow deserve your wealth if they have less. That is not charity, it is self-imposed slavery; working for / giving to others with no benefit to one's self.

There is a significant difference between the two actions.

If you have problems over definition - discuss that with relevant charities.

that is a nonsensical reply.

which is what I've come to expect.

I'm not here to discuss anything with you. Got no interest in your comments - they are both dumb and ill-informed.

it's transparent what you here for.

you post pseudo-intellectual drivel without any grasp of the core issues and alternate every other post with an attack upon something about the USA, or make passive agressive comments regarding the same.

and btw, you do obviously have an interest in my comments, because you continue to reply to them as well as discuss with others the same topics I bring up. :1orglaugh

Sheesh.. is this supposed to be a sentence? "it's transparent what you here for."

Already said.. You have nothing to offer - I don't waste time on trash.

It's ironic that I'm actually here now answering your post - you clearly have a lower level of activity in your life that you can afford to spend time answering posts with superfluous dribble and some supposed "contest". I don't mix with or do biz with back-bedroom chatboard trolls with no experience in this business - or of much else in the real world.

Now.. excuse me... got to attend to more relevant biz aspects for this day - which involve more than you ever managed in your life.

yes haha I mistyped my quick reply and left out the 'are' and didn't edit the post in time. whatever.

yet here you are again, so you either don't consider me trash, or you have just contradicted yourself :)

"contest"? what the hell are you rambling about?

and yes I do post on gfy, the few minutes it takes me to type a reply doesn't take long. your posts (of which you make more than I) tend to ramble on for much longer than mine and we both know that it takes you longer to compose them - so which of us has the 'low level' of activity? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

hahahaha no experience in this business? LOL. you are truly an idiot who obviously knows nothing about my business. yet another pathetic passive agressive attack. believe me, I probably have a lot more varied experience about the real world than you will EVER have or likely ever COULD have.

extremely doubtful.
it's strange how much you claim that you have some 'business' to attend to when you're posting in BS threads at 1AM and trying to convince yourself that I'm some board troll when you've made about 4X as many posts as I have here.

feel free to go back to your business of being a pathetic whining bitch, I'm done with you now.

with the amount he's giving, you think he won't have a say? lol.

if you feel attacked by this, stop acting like a third grader.

and just because I enjoy rubbing kid's noses in their own words:
:1orglaugh

Interesting post Webby. I think governments give because they're pressured to, or for good PR, because they have to basically. When they do give money, they give it through established charities mostly, or directly to the governments who probably don't use the money very effectively.

I'm sure in this case they're avoiding these obvious pitfalls by creating their own organizations instead of trusting others, and won't be run by people 'donating their life' but professionals who will be paid accordingly.

I know it's easy to be upset that your country is giving $X when there are obvious uses for $X at home. Also the biggest complaint is that the money doesn't get spent well. I think this foundation covers both concerns well. First it's not taxpayer money, and secondly I really think they'll have a good plan of action when this money starts getting used.

Right there genius.

12click is a sociopath. He doesn't give anything to charity. He'll tell you he gives millions though, to make himself look good.

Well, I was close anyway. Still have to be very sick in the head to lie about giving money to charity.

Ron, do you watch the Daily show with Jon Stewart?

There was some good satire on there yesterday about a few major charities whooping it up over the news of this donation, not realizing none of the money is earmarked for them... it was pretty funny.

I'm not sure exactly what Gates' foundation is doing overseas. If they successfully manage to inject education, health care or other foundations of economic growth into 3rd world countries this might help create future markets.

Future markets = tomorrow's customers of G7 products and services.

The real question is if the US is the markt to benefit most of the emerging markets' uprise? Or will India, China, Korea etc. benefit more?

I'm so confused now - who am I supposed to be donating to?!?!

Some companies that are/were in his portfolio:

Coca-Cola
Mc Donalds
Gilette
American Express
Walt Disney
General Re Corporation
...

All these companies operate worldwide and make their profits worldwide. So, as Warren Buffet didn't make his wealth only in the US, why shouldn't he give it back to the whole world?


Second, it doesn't matter whether he or someone else owns the shares of these companies - the jobs in the US will not suddenly vanish.

I don't believe I said he should limit it to the USA only - what I was saying was I think it would be more appropriate to spend it in the communities of those who have helped him build his fortune. Whether that is in the USA exclusively or near a manufacturing center in India etc depends upon where the business has been done. If he's utilizing the resources of a community (i.e. the people, their education, etc) then those would be the best places to begin with charity work, where ever that is. I rather doubt many 3rd world countries are on that list though.

I never implied that they would. What I said would vanish was investment capital, which is going to be as important for future growth as any job is today. Someone does typically need to invest in a business before a job opens up for someone else, and that money has to come from somewhere.

That being said, this is all rather academic. He may be the 2nd wealthiest individual in the country however his total assets are probably a drop in the bucket compared to many corporations. So his actions aren't really going to cause any type of significant harm here on their own even if he were to give it entirely to some other region that would squander it. It just seems foolish to commend someone for making one's own area, or areas they have built businesses in, poorer to some degree.

Well when you're actually right about something i'll amend that comment.

This thread is pure gold...seriously... :1orglaugh

And then people wonder why the US is hated...tskk tskk

CD, what's really funny is all the surfers in this thread. I'm always amazed at hjow they think they matter on a board with its roots in business.
When I take my program live, will you not usee it because the sacx and ms souls of the world explain that I'm an idiot?

are they really so idiotic as to not understand the difference between their join date and mine?:1orglaugh

most people probably don't give it much thought :2 cents:

Like you pretend not to but have a need to answer every post.

Hell.. most of the planet give it a thought - it attracts "thoughts".

Running out of steam, old fart ????

Down to the " join date " ... What's next, number of posts ???

how many posts have I replied to in this thread? not all of them.

now on the other hand if we start counting how many times you're replied to my posts....

no, thats your claim to fame.
I go to "accomplishments in this business" next.
you know, the category you disappear in.:1orglaugh

24 so far - every one as an attempted defense when you had a perception their was a perceived attack in some way. It never fails - just have to mention the word "US" and the usual GFY trolls flock around - then it denegrates to a base level.

Another mistake in calculation - you actually responded more of my posts that the reverse. You can't help it.

Fire on boy - go for the 25 and make another pointless comment with no substance.

PS Try answering Roger's very simple question here:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...1#post10269168

yeah you're so succesful and everyone else isn't! More faultless 12clicks logic.

you counted them lol :1orglaugh :helpme

actually if you read your original post, you accused me of responding to every post, which I did not. 187 posts in this thread, you say I have 24 of them... do the math.

and why is it that you assume that I vote for republicans as a rule or even consider myself one?

AmateurFlix:

Don't ya just live for the orgasmic pleasure of responding?

Go for 27 boy!






100% agree Rui - it's classic! :1orglaugh

you know what - i fucking hate to say this but i'm in agreement with 12clicks.

Part of the Gates' Foundation's mission statement is to find cures for cancer and AIDS. It's quite obvious that Bill wants a Nobel Prize, and you can't blame Buffett for wanting a piece of the action. Another high priority is improving education and public libraries in the US. Either way, "globalization" is inevitable. Unless we want to fight Iraq wars for the next eon, investment has to be made to integrate 3rd world counties into the modern world before militant/radical religious groups get entrenched. It's about the standard of living for our children, grandchildren, and so on.

I commend both of them. For over a decade, Gates has given at least $500M to charity every year, it's incredible.

you're the one that has said you were done replying to my posts, that you weren't interested in anything I had to say, and yet you keep coming back for more...

don't late your self loathing show on a chat board, son. I never said anything about success. Don't let your lack of any force you to reveal things no ones asked.:1orglaugh

But still, you can't resist eh? :1orglaugh

I'm not the one that said I wasn't going to post replies...

and you never did answer my question of why you assumed I voted republican. that was a rather bizarre assumption considering the topic of this thread.

has someone sent you a list of passive agressive comments that you're eager to test out on a republican somewhere?

Sweet :winkwink:

you've made 6 posts since claiming you had no interest in discussing anything with me and had no interest in my posts.

each post has seemed shorter than the last though.

now you are making a monosyllabic reply.

keep up at this rate please.

Mmmm :winkwink:




Who is discussing anything? I'm playing with a troll - tho you might think this is a discussion topic *lol*

heh, no, you don't get that exit either dipshit... you already bowed out of the thread then felt the need to post more. and as is typical for you, when caught you attempted to turn it around...

you're a fucking tool dude and anyone with a few active brain cells can see what you're doing. your pathetic attempts to regain some sense of dignity that no one else even gives a shit about just emphasize how ineffectual you are in your postings. you shouldn't enter debate/discussion threads, you aren't good at them and you end up making a fool of yourself :2 cents:

again, it's difficult to label someone else a board troll when you post twice as much per day as them...

Mmmm :winkwink:


Still can't resist typing a load of shit and being back to your crass self with attempted insults? *lol*