Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 06-11-2007, 02:37 AM   #1
$5 submissions
I help you SUCCEED
 
$5 submissions's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas
Posts: 32,195
Do RICH people have an obligation to POOR people?

What's your spin on this?

Notice the initial difference in philosophy re philanthropy between Bill Gates and Carlos Slim Helu. See: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....D=2&subID=1703

What do you think of the idea that creating jobs and expanding the economy IS a form of philanthropy... Moreover, it is more PERMANENT since it involves enabling people to build up their market value by giving them training.
$5 submissions is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 03:07 AM   #2
TBrown
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by $5 submissions View Post
What's your spin on this?

Notice the initial difference in philosophy re philanthropy between Bill Gates and Carlos Slim Helu. See: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....D=2&subID=1703

What do you think of the idea that creating jobs and expanding the economy IS a form of philanthropy... Moreover, it is more PERMANENT since it involves enabling people to build up their market value by giving them training.
sorry but that's bullshit.
__________________



mcbrown
TBrown is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 03:15 AM   #3
$5 submissions
I help you SUCCEED
 
$5 submissions's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas
Posts: 32,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayoutbrown View Post
sorry but that's bullshit.
I see. So what's your answer to the question?
$5 submissions is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 03:19 AM   #4
fluffygrrl
So Fucking Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,187
Absolutely none whatsoever.

They are free to feed the losers, since it's their money, but other than that,

actually, come to think about it, the losers need to be alot more respectfull first.
fluffygrrl is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 03:27 AM   #5
BucksMania
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,758
The poor people have obligation to the rich ones to make them even more rich....
BucksMania is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 03:53 AM   #6
StarkReality
Confirmed User
 
StarkReality's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 4,444
They have a obligation for poor people for a simple reason: You can only be rich because others are poor. The wealth of the US and Europe are based on exploiting poor countries, their workers, their resources. Cheap clothes and electronics from china, customer support and programmers from india, diamands, gold, silver, etc. from africa, just a few examples.

It's not necessarily a bad thing because it improves overall economic growth and wealth wordwide, but it certainly comes with some sort of obligation.
StarkReality is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 04:00 AM   #7
$5 submissions
I help you SUCCEED
 
$5 submissions's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas
Posts: 32,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkReality View Post
They have a obligation for poor people for a simple reason: You can only be rich because others are poor.
Interesting. So you're saying that if the whole world's wealth was a giant pie, for richer countries to get a larger slice, the poorer countries' slice would have to get smaller?
$5 submissions is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 04:22 AM   #8
StarkReality
Confirmed User
 
StarkReality's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 4,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by $5 submissions View Post
Interesting. So you're saying that if the whole world's wealth was a giant pie, for richer countries to get a larger slice, the poorer countries' slice would have to get smaller?
Well, the size of the pie grows overall, but if poorer contries would get a bigger slice (higher prices for resources and work power) it would influence the size of our slice (profit made by companies using these resources).

It doesn't mean the poorer countries slice gets smaller and smaller, it's gets bigger as well, but much slower.

So, it helps poorer countries as well, but I wouldn't call it philanthropy. Philanthropy would mean sharing wealth in a fair way, but with equal wealth worldwide, economy would be fucked, because profit means paying less for something than you get for it.

Communism/socialism doesn't work long term, there are some nice ideas in these concepts, but without greed, there is no economic growth and no wealth...but I don't see a reason why capitalism shouldn't have some social components.

At the moment, it's pretty much darwinism and asking for respect or not caring at all just because we had the luck to be born in the "right" country is pretty sad and narrow minded.
StarkReality is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 05:21 AM   #9
$5 submissions
I help you SUCCEED
 
$5 submissions's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas
Posts: 32,195
Good analysis. I think poorer countries could get richer faster if they abandon monopoly systems. It's not a question of richer countries being obligated to poorer countries, in my opinion. Poorer countries have an obligation to THEMSELVES to improve their economy by unleashing the full potential of their population's economic creativity. Cases on point--Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Hong Kong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkReality View Post
Well, the size of the pie grows overall, but if poorer contries would get a bigger slice (higher prices for resources and work power) it would influence the size of our slice (profit made by companies using these resources).

It doesn't mean the poorer countries slice gets smaller and smaller, it's gets bigger as well, but much slower.

So, it helps poorer countries as well, but I wouldn't call it philanthropy. Philanthropy would mean sharing wealth in a fair way, but with equal wealth worldwide, economy would be fucked, because profit means paying less for something than you get for it.

Communism/socialism doesn't work long term, there are some nice ideas in these concepts, but without greed, there is no economic growth and no wealth...but I don't see a reason why capitalism shouldn't have some social components.

At the moment, it's pretty much darwinism and asking for respect or not caring at all just because we had the luck to be born in the "right" country is pretty sad and narrow minded.
$5 submissions is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 05:29 AM   #10
fluffygrrl
So Fucking Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkReality View Post
They have a obligation for poor people for a simple reason: You can only be rich because others are poor.
Oh get the fook out, that's not your head thinking, that's your ass doing something.

Innocent people have an obligation to criminals, because if there weren't no criminals there'd be no innocent people. Mothers that don't do meth have an obligation to mothers that do meth because without the mothers that do meth there'd be no meth to not do.

Get out.
fluffygrrl is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2007, 06:03 AM   #11
DamageX
Marketing & Strategy
 
DamageX's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Former nomad
Posts: 14,293
If there weren't any poor people then there wouldn't be any rich people. Think about it.
__________________
Whitehat is for chumps

If you don't do it, somebody else will - true story!
DamageX is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.