Can Billionares change the World?

[Hidroncs]

Hi everyone.

A new theme coming up. Maybe you already, heard about it, but if not then here is the time :)

Forty of the wealthiest families and individuals in the United States want to donate at least 50% of their money.

Here is their official press release. (http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/PressRelease_8_4.pdf)

And here is their website (http://givingpledge.org), with all the donators names, and goals.

- So what do you think, how more will join?
- Can they really help ? (or this is just a good advertisement?)
- Would you join if you would be a billionaire ?(or its just waste of money?)
- Are these people powerful/rich enough to make real results?

Lets discuss....

[RyanCooper]

Nice theme :)

Well, i think its a good idea as they dont really need all that money. If some more ppl join, will almost all be sports players as it will make an ad for them. i think they can really help, if more ppl join, they can get alot of money and can change things. :D

If i was a billionaire... hmm... i think i would as i would probably have everything i need and want. And yes, rich ppl are controlling the world, so they are powerful enough to make a difference ;)

[Nicoleise]

I think it's sorta typical... You'll stamp on peoples necks going up, striving riches, and when you sit there someday with a bit of guilt, you'll feel better if you throw money at it.

Personally, I have a deeper respect for people who remove all the media stunts and press-releases from the equasion, and simply go out there, hands on and see if there's anywhere they can help.


You ask if I would join this, if I were to become that wealthy. No, not in a million years. On the other hand, I would do something specific, where I feel someone was let down, by fate, by the government or whatever.

For instance, schools here are not being very well maintained. So instead of me donating e.g. 500.000.000$ to some fund for renovations, that would require vast amounts of money just to be administered, in terms of lawyers, finance people, etc, where essentially alot of the money wouldn't benefit those it was meant for, I'd much rather go visit a school myself, and if I find things to be bad ; I'd donate something to that specific school, under a set of terms that state that they can recieve the amount upon agreeing that it may only be used for the purpose specified.

Now, granted ; this does have a massive flaw - I would only impact places I visit personally - yes. But it's how I'd do it. I've always respected people who climb off their "high horse" and actually meet people on "level ground", instead of basically flying overhead in a Learjet throwing money out the hatch. I also think it matters more to people, if they feel that someone has sympathy for them as individuals, rather than for them as a group.

That being said, I wouldn't wonder around giving people money, but I would send anonymous donations - not only to schools and such, but also to private people who've been struck by a tragedy and have their future looking bleak, e.g. if their house has been damaged and they can't afford repairs, or if a family of 10 sleeps in a 2 room flat. I would never want people to know who gave them the money though, I don't want people to feel like the owe something back to anybody specific.

So why not give a massive donation, e.g. to some cause like these fellas do? Plain and simple - if I want to support a charity, I will. But I don't want the money I spend on charity to enrich some reversed Robin Hood instead. For instance, most of you are familiar with the Red Cross organisation. It's danish head executive (whom by the way was already very well paid), decided that Red Cross didn't require so much of his attention, that it would prevent him from running for government. But alas, problems began. Some fairminded people pointed out that he wouldn't exactly be able to do an impartial job with a foot in both positions. So he had to leave one, and since he never really cared about helping others in the first place, it was easy to choose that Red Cross should be without him.

But would you believe the :sssh: had the stommach to request (and recieve) 35 MILLION USD as a "golden handshake" (a bonus when you leave an executive position). I would not sleep at night, knowing that 35.000.000$, that were supposed to buy vacines and build schools in Africa was in my bank instead! Along with cases like that, their "administrative margins" are ridiculous, so often only 75% of the money get to where it's needed, if not less.

I understand they have an organisation to run, but if I choose to fund schools in Africa - again, I would go down there myself, with an interpretator or two, talk to the local governments and so on, and I'm sure they would be helpfull in pointing out a suitable site and point me to some local business that could use the occupation of building and managing the school. And at the same time, I would be much more reassured, that the money I spend for charity - went for charity.


I was surprised to see noone from Florida on that list though, as especially Fort Lauderdale is basically consisting of gray haired, rich americans. It's like a retirement home for the rich and famous, and surely they would have some to spare, and had time to think about giving something back, as they call it.


Anyhow, while I suppose it's probably very admireable from their own point of view, the only thing I respect in this is that they acknowledge and issue and to "their thing" to resolve it. I don't see it as any sacrifice in any way, as some of these people are good for unimaginable amounts of money - one of them said it very well themselves actually :
Warren Buffett: “Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. [...]”

In my opinion, these people are rich in a way that they wont even notice the money they're donating... They wont miss them. They would probably not miss 50.000.000.000$, unless their accountant made them aware that they were missing. So in that regard, like I said, I don't consider it a huge sacrifice on their part, they can keep doing whatever they've done till now, and since charity is a tax-writeoff, they'll even get to pay less tax this year. ;) If they did something that would actually affect them in some way, I'd be more impressed. :) If they did it without the media stunts and the press releases, I wouldn't be able to get my arms down. ;)

[DeKA]

well i would better like if they donate ME for 10% of the amount they want to sink in this ... hmm pompous welfare action

it changes nothing it's just a press-release

[Kernels]

To answer the Op question...Nah. They're probably responsible for 60% of the world's issues today, having caused them in their mad rush fro fame and riches.

Throwing money at something can sometimes work, only when done correctly.
Doing something like, bribing the EU to abolish economy as we know it and rid homo sapiens of it's ridiculous materialism would be a god use of those billions of dinero.