Originally posted by sasquatch672It doesn't matter. The site (http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/philanthropy/2004/09/23/cz_dw_0923philan_rl04.html%20[Preview%20This%20Site]%204.) lists his total donated wealth as being $28,291,699,101 and his current net worth as $48,000,000,000, which means he's given away 37% of his wealth. Big deal. Anybody could give away that kind of cash if they started off with $76,291,699,101 in their pockets. Does he think he can buy people's gratitude? The fact that he gave away a greater percentage than most of the other skinflints on that list means nothing. He's still got $48 billion left over. That's $8 for every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. Any system that allows one man to wallow in $48 billion while hundreds of millions of others live in poverty or starve is morally bankrupt at its very core. No amount of philanthropy can obfuscate that fact.
From Forbes.com profile of Bill Gates:
"World's biggest philanthropist also devoting $27 billion to good deeds..."
You kind of got your britches twisted up over nothing there, didn't you? I was a damn sight more right than you.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/54/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=54&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&uniqueId=BH69&datatype=Person
Originally posted by rhbThat's the wrong question. The question should be, "why do we have a system that allows individuals to amass such grotesque amounts of wealth in the first place?" How much is enough for one man? Wouldn't you be considered rich enough if you had a mere $48 million? Why does anybody need $48 billion? It simply boggles the mind.
Just curious about how much everyone here thinks he should give away then? All of it? 95%? 90%? Less?
Agree with you both. It is an obscene amount of money for one person to hold (but to swap place for just one day...!).
We must accept the fact right now that the system stinks and he has it, so how much of it should he rightfully give away?
Once that's answered we can maybe go and do something about changing the system...
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettWhy does anybody need a $2000 personal computer for playing online chess when you can pick up a board for $10 at a toy store and play a game in the park? By your logic, none of us would be gathering here, since we'd only keep what we need and give the rest away. That is, instead of you having a $2000 PC, you could by 200 toy chess sets and give 199 of them away. Are you in favor of doing this?
Why does anybody need $48 [b]billion? [/b]
Or does your logic only apply to those who are more wealthy than you? That is, once you are asked to give away things you don't need, do you stick with your argument? For you must realize that people in third-world countries see no essential difference between any given well-to-do American like yourself and Bill Gates. All they see is that each person has an inconceivable amount of income, so the fact that you draw the wealth cap below Bill Gates but above yourself is not even arbitrary but completely biased in your favor.
Dr. S
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI'm sure the average citizen of Mexico would just as quickly ask:
Wouldn't you be considered rich enough if you had a mere $48 million? Why does anybody need $48 [b]billion? It simply boggles the mind. [/b]
"Wouldn't you be considered rich enough if you had a tenth of RWillis's wealth? Why does anybody need RWillis's full wealth? It simply boggles the mind."
How do you answer that Mexican?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSend Bill Gates to the guillotine and spread his horded wealth among Mexico's 100 million people and it equals $480 per person. Not too shabby for a nation with a GNP per capita of $4,440. Spread my meager wealth between 100 million Mexicans and they won't even get a penny apiece.
I'm sure the average citizen of Mexico would just as quickly ask:
"Wouldn't you be considered rich enough if you had a tenth of RWillis's wealth? Why does anybody need RWillis's full wealth? It simply boggles the mind."
How do you answer that Mexican?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettBut there are wealthier entities than Bill Gates. Why can't he use the same argument when you try to place him in the guillotine? That is, if you get to appeal to the wealthier to be sacrificed before you, why shouldn't he have that same privilege?
Send Bill Gates to the guillotine and spread his horded wealth among Mexico's 100 million people and it equals $480 per person. Not too shabby for a nation with a GNP per capita of $4,440. Spread my meager wealth between 100 million Mexicans and they won't even get a penny apiece.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat's completely absurd. Because there are disparities in wealth everywhere in the world, no one is allowed to criticize someone who is worth $48 billion unless they make less than humanity's median amount of wealth? Is that what you're saying? Or would you say that only the poorest person on earth be allowed to complain about the system?
Why does anybody [b]need a $2000 personal computer for playing online chess when you can pick up a board for $10 at a toy store and play a game in the park? By your logic, none of us would be gathering here, since we'd only keep what we need and give the rest away. That is, instead of you having a $2000 PC, you could by 200 toy chess sets and ...[text shortened]... ill Gates but above yourself is not even arbitrary but completely biased in your favor.
Dr. S[/b]
If you are saying that we could implement an egalitarian economic system, but that it would mean that I may have to give up a little bit, would I still be for it? Yes I would. Absolutely. As long as it's a truly egalitarian economic system and not some sort of Soviet totalitarian police state.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAccording to Forbes, Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the world. So I use him as my example of obscene wealth in action.
But there are wealthier entities than Bill Gates. Why can't he use the same argument when you try to place him in the guillotine? That is, if you get to appeal to the wealthier to be sacrificed before you, why shouldn't he have that same privilege?