Do RICH people have an obligation to POOR people?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • $5 submissions
    I help you SUCCEED
    • Nov 2003
    • 32195

    #1

    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.
  • TBrown
    Confirmed User
    • Oct 2006
    • 1519

    #2
    Originally posted by $5 submissions
    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

    Comment

    • $5 submissions
      I help you SUCCEED
      • Nov 2003
      • 32195

      #3
      Originally posted by adpayoutbrown
      sorry but that's bullshit.
      I see. So what's your answer to the question?

      Comment

      • fluffygrrl
        So Fucking Banned
        • May 2006
        • 2187

        #4
        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.

        Comment

        • BucksMania
          Confirmed User
          • Oct 2005
          • 3758

          #5
          The poor people have obligation to the rich ones to make them even more rich....

          Comment

          • StarkReality
            Confirmed User
            • May 2004
            • 4444

            #6
            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.

            Comment

            • $5 submissions
              I help you SUCCEED
              • Nov 2003
              • 32195

              #7
              Originally posted by StarkReality
              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?

              Comment

              • StarkReality
                Confirmed User
                • May 2004
                • 4444

                #8
                Originally posted by $5 submissions
                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.

                Comment

                • $5 submissions
                  I help you SUCCEED
                  • Nov 2003
                  • 32195

                  #9
                  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.

                  Originally posted by StarkReality
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • fluffygrrl
                    So Fucking Banned
                    • May 2006
                    • 2187

                    #10
                    Originally posted by StarkReality
                    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.

                    Comment

                    • DamageX
                      Marketing & Strategy
                      • Jun 2001
                      • 14293

                      #11
                      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!

                      Comment

                      Working...