[Guybrush Sheepgood]

After reading this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...fshore-economy

I just can't understand the thought process of the super rich. How can they have so much money and be completely uncaring about all the poverty, disease and hunger in the world? It's just mind boggling.

'£6.3tn of assets is owned by only 92,000 people, or 0.001% of the world's population'

Surely to be so uncaring about the suffering that goes on in the world when these people have so much money and power, they have to be psychopaths? How can any rational person not feel sorry for all the dieing people in Africa when they have the power to stop it? It's the equivalent of me walking along the road and seeing a whole family lying there bleeding to death and not caring, not calling an ambulance, just carrying on walking without blinking an eye.

If YOU had that kind of money and power would you care about the plight of others? Would you try and get your super rich friends to change their ways?

[Hamburglar0]

While it's true that many of the super-rich have this psychopathic / uncaring attitude, there are plenty of examples of the opposite as well... For example the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the world's largest charitable trust, and Warren Buffet's one-time donation of $20 billion+ was the biggest one-time charitable donation in history. So, while some may be psychopathic, it's not true for all of the rich.

[Fusion]

Psychopaths are disproportionately wealthy because their lack of remorse/guilt will get them places in ruthless environments. For instance that guy at Rangers must be a psycho, and those oligarchs too.


Having said that loopholes are exploited by the accountants on behalf of the client.

[PinkyPurply]

If I'm completely honest I would probably give little to charity compared to others.
It's all well and good saying that they should give their money to charity but it's a very different situation when it's your own.

I'm not from a wealthy background by any stretch of the imagination and I'm painfully aware that I'm a terrible person.

[Norton1]

I would give lots of money to charity.

I've also worked out I could build myself a golden house for a mere $15,313,760,000. So that too.

(My basis for this; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...homehay19.html
http://goldpricenetwork.com/goldprice/uk/)

[Steevee]

Why should they?

But more to the point, many of the super-rich do give millions to charity, they just don't make a song and dance about it. And to be honest, they probably give the same sort of proportion of their overall wealth to charity as you do.

[ken2]

(Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood)
After reading this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...fshore-economy

I just can't understand the thought process of the super rich. How can they have so much money and be completely uncaring about all the poverty, disease and hunger in the world? It's just mind boggling.

'£6.3tn of assets is owned by only 92,000 people, or 0.001% of the world's population'

Surely to be so uncaring about the suffering that goes on in the world when these people have so much money and power, they have to be psychopaths? How can any rational person not feel sorry for all the dieing people in Africa when they have the power to stop it? It's the equivalent of me walking along the road and seeing a whole family lying there bleeding to death and not caring, not calling an ambulance, just carrying on walking without blinking an eye.

If YOU had that kind of money and power would you care about the plight of others? Would you try and get your super rich friends to change their ways?

Its natures' natural survival instinct.
Its difficult for the "super rich" to stop getting rich.
Probably probably i dont know the fact but it could be that most of that amount of money afforementioned is being pumped back into the worlds economy and recycled back to the "super rich"(i would call them Mega-rich) at a better profit.


This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[tazarooni89]

A lot of people don't give much to charity just because they don't think about it, or because it hasn't quite sunk in that poverty is a serious problem. Sometimes it just doesn't register. It's puts you in a completely different mindset, being told about poverty from someone shaking a donations box at you in the street, compared with actually seeing and knowing people who are extremely poor and could starve to death any day now.

[glelin96]

(Original post by ken2)
Its natures' natural survival instinct.
Its difficult for the "super rich" to stop getting rich.
Probably probably i dont know the fact but it could be that most of that amount of money afforementioned is being pumped back into the worlds economy and recycled back to the "super rich"(i would call them Mega-rich) at a better profit.


This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

No it isn't. If it is the natural survival instinct then why is it so often occurring that the "Mega-rich" are giving away a larger percentage of their net worth than you most likely ever will.

[Guybrush Sheepgood]

(Original post by Steevee)
Why should they?

But more to the point, many of the super-rich do give millions to charity, they just don't make a song and dance about it. And to be honest, they probably give the same sort of proportion of their overall wealth to charity as you do.

Well the proportion argument doesn't really stand up. Normal, charitable people struggle to give a large percentage of their income to charity because if they did, they might not be able to pay the bills next month. I'm talking about people who own 100 different sports cars, 5 private jets, 40 houses, and their own private island.

As for why should they - I already stated in the original question that its the equivalent of walking past a dying person in the street and not giving a crap. You could say 'why should i?' about anything. To trivialise the poverty of millions of people and say 'why should i?' is, I feel, displaying a complete lack of morality.

(Original post by PinkyPurply)
It's all well and good saying that they should give their money to charity but it's a very different situation when it's your own.

For me, it's not, that's why I made this thread: to see how other people feel. I say that for me it's not, because, speaking about donating time rather than money, I do loads of volunteering and I have had people ask "Why the hell would you spend your time doing that?".

(Original post by ken2)
Its natures' natural survival instinct.

Actually, I think a lot of people are biologically programmed to be sympathetic and helpful to others. This is a biproduct of the fact that parents need to have a sense of morality to protect and provide for their children and families etc. If they didn't, they might just eat their children.

[PinkyPurply]

(Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood)
Actually, I think a lot of people are biologically programmed to be sympathetic and helpful to others. This is a biproduct of the fact that parents need to have a sense of morality to protect and provide for their children and families etc. If they didn't, they might just eat their children.

That's different though, if I had millions the first thing I'd do is sort my family out. I hadn't considered that as charity though.

[Profesh]

(Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood)
If YOU had that kind of money and power would you care about the plight of others? Would you try and get your super rich friends to change their ways?

Have you ever bought anything you didn't need?

[Guybrush Sheepgood]

(Original post by Profesh)
Have you ever bought anything you didn't need?

That depends - define 'need'.

I think basic humans needs encompass things like, having a hobby to pursue so that you don't become a depressed burden on society. So in that case, I have bought a camera etc. Of course, I wouldn't die without these things but I would definitely have a much reduced quality of life.

Do I need 30 different cameras to satisfy my ravenous materialistic tastes? No.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by Steevee)
Why should they?

But more to the point, many of the super-rich do give millions to charity, they just don't make a song and dance about it. And to be honest, they probably give the same sort of proportion of their overall wealth to charity as you do.

They should because they don't need all of that money and it's the right thing to do.

[Bill_Gates]

Yes i would give it all away. Theres only so many big houses and Ferrari's you can buy. Im not even rich at the moment and i regularly give away. I find it greedy. What makes me happy is seeing a happy world.

[Aeschylus]

(Original post by Bill_Gates)
Yes i would give it all away. Theres only so many big houses and Ferrari's you can buy. Im not even rich at the moment and i regularly give away. I find it greedy. What makes me happy is seeing a happy world.

pretty authentic username, considering

[Suetonius]

Typical hype from The Guardian. There's not a one-size-fits-all evil collective called the "super rich" who conspiratorially get together and hide all their money from needy poor people just for the sake of it. These are the aggregate savings of many individuals who, by virtue of their success, have used such means to do what anybody else would. Considering the government would likely squander their tax money on useless and inefficient public services that benefit no-one, I think the "super rich" deserve enormous credit for keeping it out of State hands. Has this study taken into account the high levels of "super rich" philanthropy, trickle-down, and other investments which have, no doubt, saved and improved hundreds of thousands of lives across the world? I doubt it.

[Profesh]

(Original post by Guybrush Sheepgood)
That depends - define 'need'.

I think basic humans needs encompass things like, having a hobby to pursue so that you don't become a depressed burden on society. So in that case, I have bought a camera etc. Of course, I wouldn't die without these things but I would definitely have a much reduced quality of life.

So, when confronted by 'a whole family' lying in the street on the brink of starvation, rather than eschew materialism in favour of countless more ethical pastimes – reading, for example – and donate the money saved to UNICEF, you instead bought a camera, thereby condemning them to die. An accurate assessment?

Do I need 30 different cameras to satisfy my ravenous materialistic tastes? No.

Using precise economic terms, kindly explain the difference between thirty cameras purchased by thirty individuals, and thirty cameras purchased by one individual. Then, please illuminate the supposed ethical distinction between buying "thirty different cameras" and buying even one camera whose monetary value could fund the construction of thirty third-world grain silos.

And then, if at all humanly possible, stop being such a sanctimonious hypocrite.

[Guybrush Sheepgood]

(Original post by Profesh)
So, when confronted by 'a whole family' lying in the street on the brink of starvation, rather than eschew materialism in favour of countless more ethical pastimes – reading, for example – and donate the money saved to UNICEF, you instead bought a camera, thereby condemning them to die.


Using precise economic terms, kindly explain the difference between thirty cameras purchased by thirty individuals, and thirty cameras purchased by one individual. Then, please illuminate the supposed ethical distinction between buying "thirty different cameras" and buying even one camera whose monetary value could fund the construction of thirty third-world grain silos.

Because there is a limit to how much wealth I would own personally to the extent that any further wealth I earned I would feel guilty about possessing. I fully understand that it's completely subjective where this line is, and that I am imposing my own morality on the world.

I think it's pretty obvious what my point about thirty cameras is. It's excessive materialism.

[Guybrush Sheepgood]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Typical hype from The Guardian. There's not an evil one-size-fits-all collective called the "super rich" who conspiratorially get together and hide all their money from needy poor people just for the sake of it. These are the aggregate savings of many individuals who, by virtue of their success, have used the means to do what anybody else would.

Don't be so naiive. There are plenty of charitable rich people, but there are many many plenty of rich people who aren't at all charitable. I'm not talking about every single rich person. And what does their success have anything to do with it? Does being successful give you the right to ignore people's suffering?

Considering the government would likely squander their tax money on useless and inefficient public services that benefit no-one, I think the "super rich" deserve enormous credit for keeping it out of State hands.

Yes, because the NHS is pointless and a waste of time /sarcasm.

Has this study taken into account the high levels of "super rich" philanthropy, trickle-down, and other investments which have, no doubt, saved and improved hundreds of thousands of lives across the world? I doubt it.

Again, I don't dispute trickle-down works in some cases. But clearly there are many cases where it is non-existent. The fact that Africa is in the state that it is is clear evidence of this.