Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Weird, huh? We actually have enough food for world hunger and possibly malnutrition to be no longer existent in the world. Transportation costs are mainly the problem.
I just hope that giving everyone a relatively good standard of living won't keep some people from being unable to go beyond.

(I presume the double negative was unintentional)

We'd have a lot more starving artists... only without the "starving" part. The current system makes people profit-focused and does away with personal satisfaction in work; no one cares whether they like their job (to a point)... they just want a good paycheck. That, in my opinion, is a great way to throw away your life. I'd much rather everyone be a non-starving artist.

Practical concerns, like transportation, keep that from becoming a reality. Plus, there will always be necessary but unpleasant jobs that someone will have to do, and we'll need incentive to make people do them. I just hope that incentive isn't survival.

[Mrhappyface]

I don't hate rich people. Some are good, some are bad like everyone else. They are simply giants, and since everyone can see them, they are judged more. Having no philanthropists would be a tragedy.
Edit: I've got a pretty cool job as a diver that pays really well. It's fuckin cool, but I just hope I not suffering from osteoporosis by the time I retire.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Most rich people aren't philanthropists.

[Mr. Palau]

Most rich people aren't philanthropists.

Depends on what level of rich people we are talking about here. There's a point where philanthropy is the only way they can reasonably spend their money, since they have already achieved a lifestyle they deem reansonable. I would say most people with over a million dollars aren't phillanthropists, but most people with over 100 million dollars likely engage in some measure of phillanthropy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I could think of selfish things to to with 100 million dollars. I could buy all the stock in small companies and threaten to sell low if they don't sign over said company to me. I could buy a private jet, and a private airfield to go with it. I could bribe politicians into enforcing my political views upon the nation. I could purchase a division of ex-special forces mercenaries and invade Somalia.

[Nadaka]

I could think of selfish things to to with 100 million dollars. I could buy all the stock in small companies and threaten to sell low if they don't sign over said company to me. I could buy a private jet, and a private airfield to go with it. I could bribe politicians into enforcing my political views upon the nation. I could purchase a division of ex-special forces mercenaries and invade Somalia.

Hey, it works for rupert murdoch.

[Eagle_eye]

I think most "philanthropists" (with the obvious exceptions of Bill Gates and others who give most of their fortune away) are really just in it for the respect/publicity. If rich people were really concerned with helping others, they wouldn't be rich. There's no decent reason to have hundreds of millions of dollars. You can enjoy a perfectly comfortable life with much, much less, and the luxuries that require that much income are that expensive because they are status symbols, not because they have that much utility. A huge amount of suffering could be alleviated by the same amount of money. When people buy a Ferrari, or a large gemstone, or a private jet, they are condemning huge numbers of people to die. Obviously, we can't expect people to give away all their money, but when they have so much money that it is no longer a matter of securing necessities(or the things that pass for them in modern society), and they continue to hoard it, they are evil. Allowing someone to die is no different from killing them yourself.

[Mr. Palau]

I think most "philanthropists" (with the obvious exceptions of Bill Gates and others who give most of their fortune away) are really just in it for the respect/publicity. If rich people were really concerned with helping others, they wouldn't be rich. There's no decent reason to have hundreds of millions of dollars. You can enjoy a perfectly comfortable life with much, much less, and the luxuries that require that much income are that expensive because they are status symbols, not because they have that much utility. A huge amount of suffering could be alleviated by the same amount of money. When people buy a Ferrari, or a large gemstone, or a private jet, they are condemning huge numbers of people to die. Obviously, we can't expect people to give away all their money, but when they have so much money that it is no longer a matter of securing necessities(or the things that pass for them in modern society), and they continue to hoard it, they are evil. Allowing someone to die is no different from killing them yourself.

If yo do the math, takign the most expensive Ferrari ever made (this car [35M] http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/63810-1962-ferrari-250-gto-is-the-most-expensive-car-ever-sold) and the cost of keeping a child alive (which is .19 a day [69.35 a year] http://www.theroadtothehorizon.org/2006/01/news-19-cents-to-feed-child-for-day.html) and divide the cost of that car by the feeding that child until he is 60 years old, you could save the lives of 8411.439557798606 people.

Unfortunatly, that is only really 8411 people, as people aven't been known to survive being split into .439557798606s of themselves.

Really the reason people begin donating is likely less out of a kindness of their heart but because it would increase their status more than incresaing their consumption would (people start to think you're a dick when you buy a 35 million dollar sports cars, yet have not given anything to charity... go figure.). This is evidenced by the fact that as you increase deductions for charitable giving, and hence decease it's relative cost to other activities (by not taxing their income, that in the end went to charity), you see great inceases in giving. That is primarily because without the deducions the effect of my dollar on charities is noticeably less, and hence my increase in status per dollar spent is less. Which might just make the sport car worth it.

[Mrhappyface]

So if I buy a bottle of Coca-Cola for a $1.40, I  am depriving a child of a week's worth of food?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Do you also have significantly more money than you could ever spend on things that you need, or even things that you want?

[Mr. Palau]

So if I buy a bottle of Coca-Cola for a $1.40, I  am depriving a child of a week's worth of food?

I just keep the guilt away safe in my knowledge that A) I don't really care about people outside of my country who are suffering, since they are then not part of any social group I belong to, so I have no connection to them whatsoever. And B) If I feed them, they would jsut reproduce to the point where there would be more starvign children, since they wouldn't have access to birth control (which would cost a lot more money).

(Also I really need to stop playing fallout, I read that as "So if I buy a bottle of Nuca-Cola for a $1.40, I am depriving a child of week's worth of food?".)

[Sergius]

Wait... if you're rich and buy a Ferrari... isn't someone else getting that money anyway? Wouldn't it be paying the salaries of several people?

I mean, sure, the CEO gets a nice cut and all, but it's not like the money evaporates in a puff of smoke.

EDIT: In fact, by buying the Ferrari you're putting that money back in circulation. The worst thing you could do with a gazillion dollars is stash them. Spend them any frivolous ways you want, they're still going back into the economy.

[Mr. Palau]

Wait... if you're rich and buy a Ferrari... isn't someone else getting that money anyway? Wouldn't it be paying the salaries of several people?

I mean, sure, the CEO gets a nice cut and all, but it's not like the money evaporates in a puff of smoke.

EDIT: In fact, by buying the Ferrari you're putting that money back in circulation. The worst thing you could do with a gazillion dollars is stash them. Spend them any frivolous ways you want, they're still going back into the economy.

This is also true, but your spending on the Africans would likely have an even higher multiplier effect (the term for the sequence of events of which you describe) since it would save Africans from starvaion, enabeling them to work more and potentially put money back into circulation at later dates, and employ farmers and people working at the charity.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I just keep the guilt away safe in my knowledge that A) I don't really care about people outside of my country who are suffering, since they are then not part of any social group I belong to, so I have no connection to them whatsoever.

Ah, but that's where you are wrong. Humanity as a whole is a social group, even more so since the advents of international travel and globalization. We, the humans of Earth, are all on the same slowly sinking ship, and refusing to bail out the mess hall because you work in navigation just means we'll all drown eventually. You are connected to every other human alive through trade and the biosphere of this planet, both of which consist of inherently interdependent parts. National borders are arbitrary political lines with only as much meaning as you chose to place onto them. It's like arguing that you don't care if California falls into the ocean because you live in New York, of course it'll effect you.

And B) If I feed them, they would just reproduce to the point where there would be more starving children, since they wouldn't have access to birth control (which would cost a lot more money).

Wrong again. Fertility naturally decreases with the decrease of hardship. When people die before they're 40, disease is rampant, and 90% of the nation's population farms for survival, having lots of children to make your own burden easier and lots of sex to keep from just killing yourself to escape your situation is a normal response. We have seen that if an area can establish itself and reach even a moderate level of development it will result in the birth rate quickly tapering off as having 10 children becomes an economic burden rather than a benefit and birth control becomes commonplace. As for expensive, no. There are plenty of cheap birth control methods, the problem in most undeveloped areas is cutting through religion and traditionalist views of children enough to get people to use them in the first place.

[Ancre]

Yeah, I respectfully disagree to a point with the idea that buying a ferrari instead of feeding starving people is evil. Yes it's good to feed starving people, and yes wasting money on frivolities is not a good attitude. But really, I think the best thing you can do if you have a lot of money is to build a business. Employ a lot of people. That way instead of making 8411 people and a cripple dependent on you (which is not a situation you want to be in, wether you depend on someone or wether you have someone who depends on you), those people can take care of themselves. Basically you're helping an economy rather than having a group of people depending on your generosity, which only last as long as you last.

Aaah, it's late and I'm tired. Having a lot of money and spending it on useless junk doesn't mean you're evil, you're just wasting your potential. You're not intentionally making people starve, it's not your fault they are starving after all, and they're not your dependents. Being generous, being a philanthropist, means you're doing something you don't have to do. If you're under some sort of moral obligation of feeding the poor, then it's not philanthropy, it's more related to paying your taxes than to philanthropy.