Just like anything else, charity begins at home. If I was fuck you rich, and actually felt like donating something, I would ensure CANADIANS are helped first and foremost. I personally believe that it's more important to help your own people then to help somebody else, especially when that somebody else is a county who has a track record of fucking up the massive amounts of aid they already have received. It pisses me off to no end that we are raising money for these people. When I was in highschool every year our school did an "aid for africa day," where people would go around and ask for donations. Fuck that, the first day I go through downtown Hamilton/Toronto/London/Cambridge/Guelph etc. etc. and I don't see any homeless or crack whores, I'll donate to Africa. Surprisingly this speech pissed off a black kid in one of my classes.
This is really confusing to me. Let's assume that all charity given is utilized equally well regardless of which region of the world it is sent to. Would you still help those near you before those far away from you? Why or why not? Do you value the lives of those near you more than those not near you? I'm trying to understand the underlying logic of taking such a position, and I just can't. I think that's just because now it is obvious. Before, no one really knew about this specific instance of this person having so much money. I don't think you can draw the distinction you did.
Its all perception. Bill Gates's house is probably worth close to $50 million+ due to all the crazy shit in it, but people never complain about that because he gives a bunch to charity and is very public about it. Warren Buffet? People love talking about him living in the same house in Omaha, but I know for a fact he had a couple mansions in Newport Beach and most likely elsewhere. And one of his sons, who produces new age music of all things, lived in one of the biggest mansions in Milwaukee for a time. I don't think his music was funding the purchase of that place. Everyone has their own interpretation of wealth and their own ideas about what they would do with it. If someone spends gobs of money on stupid shit, its their prerogative. If they spend tons of money on Cristal and G4s, but give tons of money to charity, your perceived right to bash their excess becomes even flimsier. One of my favorite comments is "oh, if I had a billion dollars, I would have a simple house and a functional car." Surprise, 99% of those people don't have anywhere near that money. And I'm not calling out anyone on this thread, cause its been civil and intelligent discourse. I'm talking more the idiots you meet in intellectual settings or when you have the misfortune of seeing the comments on any Yahoo Finance article. One of my friends growing up was the son of a Wells Fargo exec. Despite making tons of $$, they lived in a very simple house. As a result, that friend, if he makes big money, I can say for certain will buy a big ass house. I have another whose Dad is retired at 52 after making a fortune in commercial real estate. Their house is nice, but nothing fancy and I've heard people comment how frugal he is...then heard him laugh as we talk about his storage garage 5 min away where he keeps 2 Ferraris. I guess my rambling point is that its not worth it or fair to judge these people's spending of their OWN money, especially when its something that is reported in the media. Wealthy with a big house doesn't mean selfish just like giving tons to charity doesn't automatically make someone altruistic. Having the freedom to make and spend money, and be judged for it by haters, is one of the beauties of our society.
Oddly enough, the richest people I know tend to be very nice. They tend not to have anything to prove, so they're just relaxed people. I don't move in trust fund circles, so of the (4) rich people I know, they are self made rather than having it handed to them, which probably makes a difference. My one friend who has had a couple of million passed on to him is actually probably the hardest working guy I know. His folks were off the boat immigrants who went from poverty to riches, and his determination to repay them by building a family dynasty is somewhere between impressive and scary. People can, and should, do whatever they like with their money. Spice 1 had it right when he said 'Don't ever let me hear ya talk bad up on a player's name, 'cause when you get your scratch on, haters gon' do the same.'
Two reasons. One is that we're evolutionarily wired to be this way. We evolved in tribe-like social groups and survival dictated supporting the members of your tribe/group while outsiders were an afterthought at best, a threat at worst. So a lot of people when considering charity act with this impulse subconsciously. Second, and from a logical standpoint, consider the following scenario: I have money/resources to donate and there are two vagrants in need of support, one in my town and one living on the other side of the country. Without support these vagrants are likely to engage in some form of criminal activity to get by. Choosing to help the one who lives in my city brings the added advantage of making me less likely to become a victim of crime, so it's in my own self-interest to help the guy close to me rather than the guy far away.
Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is, doesn't mean it's right or rational. But the fact of the matter is there are far more people in need in other places than there are in the first world countries you and I live in. The criminality aspect of it is a fair point, but an awfully weak one.
I think the biggest reason is that people want to see their contribution pay off. When you donate to the local animal shelter or soup kitchen or Little League or whatever, you see what your money goes to. Whether that's an extra vet helping out kitties, or better ingredients that go into the soup, or better grounds maintenance on the fields, you see it happening. And that's important. If you donate to a cause in Africa, all you get is a warm and fuzzy feeling. It's not the same direct feeling of fulfilment that you get when you donate locally. Interestingly enough, charities that work in Third-world countries have tried to address this problem. My church back home funds a church in Haiti. Every year, the bowl comes around to sponsor a kid through school. It all goes into the same bowl, but my parents have been getting letters and photos from the same family with the same kids for years. That sort of human impact hits far closer to your heart than any sort of thank-you letter.
I don't get this backlash against the wealthy. All they do is drive nicer cars, live in bigger homes, get to do wahtever they want, skate from crimes, have longer vacations, more money, sleep with more attractive people than you do and pay less taxes. I mean, what's not to love? Personally, your money is YOUR MONEY. If you earned it, do with it what you will. Hell, my favourite music artist of all time Elvis used to take a private plane to Denver at 3am to buy peanut butter sandwiches. Why? Why not? What do you care? I never really hated the rich in real life (unlike the way they are portrayed on shows like Law & Order or every teen comedy ever made) until the past 10 years ago when a whole lot of them started bitching about how they should pay less taxes (as in none) because they use that saved money to "create jobs". Biggest. Lie. Ever. Unemployment has skyrocketed and companies are constantly downsizing to the Third World because they only have to pay them a sliver of the at-home wages. You aren't using that money to create "new jobs" you two-faced liars. You're using it on hookers, yachts and cocaine. You have a billion (not a million) dollars and the government wants a slight amount out of you? Gee, a single tear rolls down my cheek. Taxes are the price you pay to be a member at Club [Your Country]. Some rich people are not like this. However, too many are. "Little people?" Burn in a fiery lake of excrement, you cunt.
Two things: 1. Let's not be naive. Maybe I'm one of the few with international aid work experience, but I can wholeheartedly attest that any/all charity is NOT "utilized well." In fact, I've come to the opinion that NGOs and donated money do at least as much harm as they do good. They rob power from the local authority/government (who has more power - the newest banana republic official, or the IMF?); in times of crisis they flood the market with free goods, thus ruining the trade of any people who HAVE managed to produce crop or goods; they often end up in the hands of the local warlord, used as currency in a power play; etc. Seriously - donating money, especially in unstable regions - can really do damage. The biggest thing that bugged me, though, was the tendency for the NGOs to become the biggest employer in town. How can you solve the hunger problem when the country's brightest graduates want to work for the International Food Bank? So let's not pretend that charity is ever well executed. 2. It's condescending and insulting to say to someone, "Here is money and manpower...we will tell you how to fix your problem using these tools we're giving you," when WE have the same problem in our own back yard. Jordan Paul has a point. I don't see how we can in good conscious presume to tell people how to run their countries or fix their social problems when we can't keep crime in check on the reserves, or keep junkies off the streets, or protect the vulnerable from gang activity, and on and on. It's hypocrisy.
The rational side of my brain says to not judge the obscenely rich for wasting their money on coke and hookers. The emotional side feels they have sold a part of their humanity which can never be bought back. I volunteer a significant amount of time to causes that directly help people. I never have to worry about whether or not my "donation" is going to the right place because there is instant feedback. It is very humbling and gives my life meaning. Today a dementia resident remembered me. I can't really describe it in cold logical terms. Helping others is such a uniquely human experience that to me it isn't a choice. Fabulously wealthy people have the ability to do so much good with so little effort so yeah, I do judge them if they do not at least expend some effort towards helping people. Something worth noting is I volunteer because I can afford to spend time without starving or going homeless. Many people cannot. But those who can, should.
Oh come on. We occasionally find that we have piss in bathwater, so we can't suggest that sewers have really helped with removing shit and piss from our homes? Are you fucking serious? Here's some questions that don't actually require answers to convey the point and illustrate why that's ridiculous. What percentage of residents of Canada do you think have been victims of crime in the last 5 years? What percentage of residents of say The Democratic Republic of Congo? Roughly what percentage of Americans would feel that it is never safe to stop at a red traffic light after dark in any urban center of the nation? Roughly what percentage of South Africans would feel that it is never safe to stop at a traffic light after dark in any urban center of the nation? Roughly what percentage of children in Detroit or Stockton are at serious risk of being forcibly addicted to drugs and utilized in violence related crimes? Roughly how many children in total in all of the US And Canada at any given time are involved in such horrific circumstances? Roughly what percentage of children in say Somalia are at serious risk of those circumstances? Roughly how many children on the continent? How many children in US And Canada died of Starvation, Dysentry, Malaria, Gunshot wounds, or Tuberculosis in the last five years? How many children in Africa? What percentage of 13 year olds in the US And Canada have not yet entered the work place because they are adequately provided for without the necessity of doing so? What percentage of 13 year olds in Africa? What percentage of children in US And Canada can anticipate that they will spend the majority of their adult lives with sufficient food and clean water to survive? What percentage of children in africa? Really, for all our problems, how many people in total in The US and Canada, Western Europe and Oceania are facing lives of hopelessness, poverty, starvation, disease, violence and premature death? How many Africans? Nobody says that the western first world is perfect (except for complete fucking morons) - but you might as well argue that our failure to cure HIV and Cancer makes us hypocritical to suggest antibiotics and regular hand washing to witch doctors. Not having all the answers doesn't mean we don't have any. The condescending and insulting part is saying 'We're here to help' to Africa - when the reality is that we know enough about economics to know that we're blocking any chance of developing a stable economy by not allowing them to compete on agricultural export markets, and that without a stable economy that puts a majority of the population into the middle class instead of the desperately poor - the problem won't go away. That shit is fucking hypocritical.
Theoretically, the things you describe should lead to job growth. I'm going to leave hookers and cocaine out because that involves the underground economy which has totally different parameters, but let's take your example of yachts. If the megarich piss away money on yachts that brings additional profits to yacht companies. This ought to inspire them to expand production and hire additional workers, thus creating jobs. Remember, the people who make luxury items do not live in luxury themselves, it's the same as a guy putting a car together. Things are different now. Unemployment hasn't skyrocketed because the rich aren't paying enough taxes. The reasons for skyrocketing unemployment are very different, many in number, and not even entirely clear. But an important point is that the megarich club has taken quite a hit in this recession too. Companies are hoarding cash not to be greedy (that money is sitting around collecting minimal interest) but because of very high amounts of uncertainty in the marketplace. If a recovery obviously took hold, you would likely see large amounts of additional hiring. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the rich shouldn't be taxed or should be taxed less. In fact, if it could be shown that the government can do a better job of allocating investment than the market, then it would make a lot of sense to tax their tits off. I'm just saying your argument is a little misguided. I'm not actually assuming all charity is utilized well, I just wanted to hold that factor constant to understand the priors and underlying logic that led to jordan_paul's statements. I realize charities are often a huge clusterfuck and very frequently do more harm than good. I'm also not holding the mindset you describe in your second point which I agree is very condescending and reeks of "white man's burden" style thinking. However, I also do not think the fact that charity is often fucked up is a reason to throw our hands up and instead focus on those we can see with our own eyes, or no one at all. I think there do exist properly managed and good results tested charities. In fact, there are organizations that exist that essentially let you give money directly to an individual abroad: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.givedirectly.org/home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.givedirectly.org/home</a> Check out that site. From my point of view, that organization addresses every issue raised about the potential pitfalls of charitable giving. I believe all people should be given equal opportunities regardless of where they are. This fulfills my ideal of a perfect charity where you (1) Give cash instead of your time (which is likely too valuable to use volunteering) (2) Give it to those most deserving regardless of who or where they are.
Alright, trying to avoid the massing of wall of text posts: What kind of house is worth $85 million? Unless there's a button installed in every room, wherein a girl is waiting inside the walls to give you a beer and a ball massage whenever you press said button, and is also built upon a flying shark, I can't see spending that much money on your god damn house. It's just a bunch of wood stacked together.
Let me put it this way: you have a finite amount of resources at your disposal. Your son is sick; but so are orphans in Asia. Do you spent your money treating your son, or do you send it off to some organization where a small portion of it may or may not treat the orphans? That's the rationale, I think, that Jordan Paul is referring to and it has some merit. I know I'm off topic here, but like I said earlier...I've seen a large part of charity/aid cause more problems than it helped, so I'm very leery of sending more, especially when we could use resources to help our own people and actually oversee how the money is being spent.
Okay, I'm going to pull the "old card" here for a second. I'm old enough to remember Reagan's "trickle down" policies going into effect, and I was aware enough even in my teens to look at what was happening and be angry that those policies were stealing my future. Trickle down is bullshit because greed exists. Oil companies, insurance companies, utilities, pharmaceuticals, etc., have shown RECORD PROFITS EVERY YEAR for years at a time, often indefinitely. In other words, NOTHING is trickling down. Instead, the top of the economic food chain has simply kept more and more of the pie, and continued to find ways to cut their costs and charge more money for their goods/services. This is the danger of assuming the strength of the free market concept can work across the board. In theory, people should be able to earn what the market allows them to earn, and do what they want with it. But in practice, it happens at the expense of the majority of the population because the rich have the power to influence policy, and do so liberally and dangerously. I don't give a fuck if you can afford to buy a billion dollar house, but only if you can still afford to do so AFTER you've paid back a fair share to the system that made you so absurdly fortunate. If you made your money by denying the health insurance claims of the poor or gouging the country for a gallon of gas, or even by throwing a ball so well that people will pay hundreds of dollars at a time to watch you do it - fuck you, you owe it to those people to make sure they have food in their mouths or a way to earn it, and too often the path to extreme wealth is the exact opposite, it's actually denying people the access to earning power, whether by affecting their health or removing jobs as you cut your costs or simply by insuring that their lives are spent crawling from one check to the next with no chance to get ahead of their own cost of living. If you have more than you can use, I have no problem saying that you absolutely owe it to the people around you to either share it or even better, put it to use allowing others to earn enough to survive.
The other day, I saw a corporation driving a Porsche with a supermodel in the passenger seat. They were on their way to the airport for a vacation in St. Croix. There are a lot of corporations on the beaches this time of year. Large corporations are fictional persons who cannot consume. They are owned by trust fund babies and teachers and firemen and computer programmers. If corporations make money, those natural persons become wealthier. The two other groups of corporate benefactors are the tax collector and the employees; I would recommend against any arguments that the latter group is disproportionately compensated at the C level, unless it's in the context of paying back that you articulate in your post. "Dangerously" is a curious adverb choice. Don't the policies the rich tend to favor provide for either paternalistic support of the needy or the continuation of the status quo? This a pretty far-reaching claim to leave unsubstantiated. You don't seem to be connecting the dots between the bad act, the actor, and the beneficiary. Well, sure. It's likely that the overwhelming majority (>99%) of people, once using all money they can subjectively use, put it to some public or semi-public use. Philanthropy is rare and valuable social currency, so best investment of your money once you have every material comfort is to purchase that philanthropic currency.
Whoa, which ‘80’s did you grow up in? I’m old too and I remember Reagan’s era being a time of a growing middle class, a general feeling of hope, and huge leaps in technology. It was that economy that allowed the creation of and access to many products that we take for granted now – cell phones, cd’s, PC’s, etc. All of those were enabled by the Reagan economy. So what if oil companies are making record profits? They are selling record amounts of the product they produce at the highest prices ever. Doesn’t it follow that they should have huge profits? The profit margin of the oil companies is actually very modest, usually around 6-8%. The federal government earns more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do in profits. Oil is a commodity whose price is driven by demand. They can’t sell oil at record prices unless people are willing to buy it at those prices. And if nothing is trickling down, where is that money going? The corporate executives are not sitting around the conference table repeatedly counting out dollar bills. They are not hoarding their profits. They are spending it and investing it. That’s a big part of what moves our economy. Remember the luxury tax debacle? It killed the yacht industry in the U.S. Who lost their jobs? Middle-class working people. When corporations or wealthy people have money to spend, lots of other people benefit. So you’re saying we have too much government influence in our economy? I would agree with you. Wow. Let’s use the example of athletes. Why do they owe anyone anything? They are working in a free-market economy. The reason they earn so much is that so many people are willing to pay to see them play. Those people who buy tickets or watch on TV have freely decided to use the money they’ve earned themselves to buy a ticket or watch the game. If people thought the tickets were too expensive or didn’t want to give up doing something else to watch the game on TV, the money wouldn’t be there and athletes wouldn’t get paid as much. They have not stolen anything, and they owe nobody anything. How is anyone gouging people for gas? Sure, I hate the gas prices too. I rarely drive my truck anymore because it costs so much. I take my wife’s car or ride my motorcycle. Gas usage by individuals is purely a function of lifestyle choices. If you live 30 miles from work and drive an Expedition, you’re going to buy a hell of a lot of gas. If you live 8 miles from work and ride a motorcycle as often as possible like me, you can significantly reduce your gas usage. Oil companies can only sell oil at the price people are willing to buy it at. If you think oil companies are gouging people, ask yourself this – why in the hell would the price of gasoline EVER fall? If oil companies could truly control that, we would be buying $5/gallon gas and the oil companies would tell us to go fuck ourselves. When a company is able to cut costs, it frees up that money to do something else with it. Sometimes jobs are eliminated in that cost cutting. Sometimes jobs are created because the company is able to buy more machines to increase their output, so they need more people to run those machines. In all cases, the saved money is put to some other use. It is never hoarded in a safe to be enjoyed by the select few. What good would money be unless it’s spent or invested? Why should any company or society in general maintain the staus quo just because someone might be affected? Do you use natural gas to heat your home? Do you buy milk in the grocery store? If so, don’t you feel guilty about the coal wagon driver and the milk man whom you put out of business? What are those people doing now? Should we never have invented the automobile in order to protect the jobs of the farriers?
I remember Michael Moore stumping for Kerry/Edwards in 04 at my school. Damn Ohio and it's importance in elections. He too was just mindlessly bashed the big corporations in town, P&G, GE, Johnson and Johnson, Chiquita, etc. The thieving bastards in the exec rooms saw fit to give my dad, only holding a 2 year tech degree, a job testing fan blade metal for jet engines. My mom worked for John and Johnson in administration for a medical products division. People love to vilify the rich and faceless corporations because it is easy. The fact is that these corporations employ millions of people and create products that enrich our lives (in my parents case jet engines and endoscopic surgery tools, evil fucks giving us these thing). I strongly disapprove of crony capitalism and companies shielding 100 percent of their profits from taxes, as GE did. These do need to be addressed but it is not like these companies have contributed NOTHING to further our society and are just stealing money from citizens. These employees who get a paycheck from the business their company creates pay taxes as well, something no one seems to mention here. When I make my billions I am going to swim in like Scrooge McDuck in a money bin. Holla at ya boy':
As I lurk and pop in and out of here occasionally, I always get a note or two asking me where I've been or why I don't come around more often. Read the last three posts and if you know anything about me at all, it should be pretty clear. Honestly, guys - I don't know how/where to begin to debate with that level of MBA-style-white-middle-class-heterosexual-male thinking. The paternalistic nature of policy, the assumption that I don't know the parameters of profit or the difference between corporations and human beings, the basic premise that unregulated free market policy, legal banking maneuvers that are actually pyramid schemes and publicly traded stocks (and the road that system leads down) are good for us and/or the economy in the long run, is a massive pile of we just don't see it the same at all. I don't want to turn it into vitriolic character assassination, and it's too political and far-reaching to make any sense of it here - let's just say that we live in entirely different environments and that we see how it all works very, very differently, and at a fundamental level. In any event, I do agree that every person who overpays for anything with regard to sports has no one to blame but themselves for the absurd salaries of star athletes. But I also feel that if I get paid tens of millions to throw a ball because people are willing to prioritize how much fun it is to watch me do it, then I absolutely owe it to the world that creates and allegedly sustains that system to give back and try to help the underpaid and often struggling people who teach my children or protect my house from crime and/or fire or clean that house or make my clothing, and even more pressing, those who have lost their jobs or are unable to stay above water and feed themselves or their families, for any reason whatsoever. I'm not talking about just throwing money at charities. I'm talking about participating in the world beyond your own sphere of economic status and attempting to appreciate and hopefully improve the human condition in even the smallest way. If you can do that and still buy a house for $85 million, I'll probably still dislike you, but I won't begrudge you the silly house you just bought at all.
I do hope you realize this is more an archetype of someone you plain don't like than it is a reflection of any sort of reality in this situation.