It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When is lots of money enough?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


Well I agree some rich people could do more. But feeding everyone is very complicated. We send aid to many 3rd world countries but the food never reaches the masses because their corrupt governments take it and save it for their military or trade it for weapons. There is a lot of corruption in this world that blocks people from getting the aid that is already out there. It also keeps them from growing crops, geting an education, etc.. Just look at Somalia or most strict muslim nations that keep their females from getting an education.

EDit to add.. the billgates butt kiss thing was meant for the user i was replying too. not you.. sorry for the mscomunication.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by HotSauce]




posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Some of the supposedly super wealthy are no more rich than you or I.

I remember the story about Donald Trump. Driving past a tramp, he said to a colleague that the tramp was $90 million richer than he was. Much of the wealth of these people is entirely on paper, when you cut the complex financing deals down to size many are worse off than we are. But they hold their bankers to ransom because they owe so much money.

I've often wondered about celebrities and their wealth, the Tiger Woods and David Beckhams of this world. Wouldn't you just prefer to get to a few million in the bank ... and just give up your vocation ? Prefer to live the Life of Riley instead ? I wonder what motivates such people to continue working ?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Ulala
 


I really believe that people like Tiger Woods would do there vocation for free as a hobby because they love the competition and the game more than they love the money itself. But hey Tiger has a beautiful Swedish wife to pamper so he needs a little cash.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce

Do you realize that Bill Gates bought like 90% of all the worlds Malaria medicine last year?

Do you really think he should kiss your ass now?


Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet own huge amounts of silver. After the crash, they will crown themselves kings again.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

THey are giving away thier wealth because they probably feel like the dollar is a worthless piece of paper and it is a good PR move, not because they are nice guys.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Ulala
 


I think you have to follow your dream - my dream is to save the world (as if).

But my dream is that people who can save people will do so.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


Gates has been talking about giving away his wealth since the 80's. This was well before the crash. They have committed to give nearly all their wealth away, be it stock, gold, silver, or Hello Kitty dolls.


I am pretty sure that they are not doing it for PR, because they are both gradually turnng over the stock from their businesses to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Warren Buffet even set it up so that they have to spend most of his fortune nearly as fast as he turns it over to them.


You should try not to be so bitter. It isnt good for your health.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by Ulala
 


I think you have to follow your dream - my dream is to save the world (as if).

But my dream is that people who can save people will do so.


That is a great dream to have. I admire that.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Thank you for caring about my health (not).

Thank you for telling me not to be bitter.

Hasn't anyone told you it is rude to comment on other people?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


LOL, dude please read my post again and see who it is a reply too. I wasn't speaking to you.

I had just given you a star for your dream post and replied that I admired it.



[edit on 6-11-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Oh, sorry.

I thought you were speaking to me.

OMG, I am soooooooo sorry.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Oh, sorry.

I thought you were speaking to me.

OMG, I am soooooooo sorry.


No problem.

Stuff happens.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Yes but I feel like total crap for speaking to you like that.

I cannot say how sorry I am.

Thank you for the star, I am going to star you now.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


Well don't feel bad on my part. I forgave you before I even replied. I try not to take stuff personally on here and realize that people make mistakes and also don't get the verbal cues that help them to decide what you mean by what you have typed. Welcome to the digital age, I suppose.
It would be a lot better if we were hashing them stuff out in person over a few beers.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Yes, I feel like you are my friend.

Let's have a drink!

It is sad that when you meet friends on the web, they aren't right there.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
I am just wondering why a lot of very wealthy people are not saving the starving people.


Because money isn't the answer. Money won't save the starving people.

All it will do is buy them a little more time until then need more food.

What needs to change is their minds. They need education to change how they think, to want to change for themselves. To embrace a society that works together and functions as a single unit. Not warlords, pirates, revolutions, thieves and whatnot. That just hasn't happened yet.

Compare towns in Somalia, Ethiopia and Eretrea (sp?) to any main US town. It isn't just money that divides them. It's mentality, social structure, cultural history, geographic environment.

Throwing money at that won't make them want to put down weapons and stop raiding each other. Those places are so devoid of the most basic needs that any amount of money will simply "vanish" and be absorbed like a drop of water on a beach.

I agree it isnt a great situation. But I highly disagree that the rich should feed the starving.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 


Oh, come ON!

People who live in Africa have no choice and no chance.

Of course the rich of this world could help them.

In an ideal scenario the rich people of the world would save the poor people of the world.

We are all living in this world - save your own species, please.

No wonder people abuse animals - people abuse people - I am sick and tired of it.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
why doesn't bill gates give away windows for free if he wants to give away stuff or at least a better price on it why not open up the source code
why not make sure the whole world has clean water to drink or free power
how about building schools and stuff in Africa so they can be smart enough to quit abusing themselves
why not send farm equipment so they can grow there own food



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


All you're doing is spouting ideals - which simply do not work in a world of economics and a system based on money.

The cold hard truth of it is that some societies simply cannot handle having a ton of money dumped into them. Their current socio-political situation means it would only drive a wedge further between their current conflicts.

Taking the example of many African states where there's loads of corruption and civil uprest due to the lack of resources. You aren't talking just about poverty any more. Rich people giving a poor community in African $1billion USD will lead to what? All of them happy? Full of food? No.

You will have violence and warfare. You will have those with the weapons taking the money from the poor. They will then use violence and intimidation to keep the poor where they are, where they have been for many years.

So what then? Do you send in "good will [people" to mitigate the conflict? Help hand out the food? What happens when thsoe individuals are attacked by mauraders/pirates/warlords for the money, food and medical supplies? You then need people to protect them, which costs money. Then you have armed foreign 'protectors' on their land....

Sound familiar?

I'm not trying to bash you, really - my point is that money simply won't solve it. It needs far more than money. It needs a drastic cultural shift because right now, fighting to survive, literally, is all they know. And dropping money on it wont work.


EDIT: for the record, I don't abuse animals. I actually value the lives of animals *far* more than any human life and have personally gone to some extreme 'extremes' to protect an animal or two from abuse.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by noonebutme]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


Never enough. The goal keeps moving. You must run with it or fall behind.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


The ultra wealthy seek more than money--they seek to influence the world, which amounts to using money as power. That is precisely why they set up these big so-called "charitable" (read: "tax-free") foundations.

The Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Oppenheimer, and Gates foundations are not necessarily the wonderful institutions you imagine them to be. They are designed to "socially engineer" the hearts, minds, and souls of the people, through educational and institutional grants, which come with all kinds of strings attached.

To get some insight into the nefarious activities of these tax-free institutions watch this interview, conducted in 1982 with Norman Dodds, who headed up a Senate investigation in the early 1950s into the activities of the large charitable institutions. The interview was conducted, when he was an old man, just a few months before he died, and it will make your hair stand on end.

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join