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.

sorry but that's bullshit.

I see. So what's your answer to the question?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

If there weren't any poor people then there wouldn't be any rich people. Think about it. :)