The Student Room Group

How would you spend the Saudi Prince's £28 Billion Wealth donation?

Saudi Arabian billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has said he will donate his entire $32bn (£20bn; €29bn) fortune to charity

He said he was inspired by the Gates Foundation (Bill & Melinda Gates charity to convince the worlds billionaires to share their wealth with those who need it).

I think this is a brilliant move and I am very thankful to people like him who so generously don't hoard such a large sum that can go such a long way to help so many.

How would you divide this large sum to the world?

Scroll to see replies

Id go on holiday and think of what to do with it.

On a serious note, well done that man.
Reply 2
It's actually really good that more and more billionaires are donating the money they'll never use either way!

Disaster relief sounds like a good donation to make, for starters.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Water aid, ending world hunger would be the best place to start.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I dont trust charities/NGO's I can't supervise myself, look at the UN for example, I mean, do they really have to buy the latest model of the Prado every year?

So I would start my own charities.
Reply 5
I'd buy up oil and guns.


No reason.
cocaine and prostitutes 50/50
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 7
I'd throw it right back at his face

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)
I'll believe it when I see it.
Buy enough copies of Queen of Pop MADONNA's Rebel Heart to make it No 1 in both the US and the UK.
Original post by rhadawey
I'd throw it right back at his face

Spoiler



Reply 11
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Buy enough copies of Queen of Pop MADONNA's Rebel Heart to make it No 1 in both the US and the UK.


That's the only way it could ever become No 1 either way :laugh:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by *Stefan*
That's the only way it could ever become No 1 either way :laugh:

Posted from TSR Mobile


Well, she was No 1 on the non-general charts in the two countries, including in actual album sales in the States (she lost out to the Empire soundtrack due to weaker track sales and streams), and was also No 1 on the global chart.

But would've been significant:
In the US, to tie Streisand with the most number one albums for a female artist and to surpass Beyoncé in consecutive number one albums.
In the UK, it would make her one inch closer to pass The Beatles for having the most number one albums in the country (she has 12, Beatles had 15; 9 studio ones and 11 respectively).
Reply 13
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Well, she was No 1 on the non-general charts in the two countries, including in actual album sales in the States (she lost out to the Empire soundtrack due to weaker track sales and streams), and was also No 1 on the global chart.

But would've been significant:
In the US, to tie Streisand with the most number one albums for a female artist and to surpass Beyoncé in consecutive number one albums.
In the UK, it would make her one inch closer to pass The Beatles for having the most number one albums in the country (she has 12, Beatles had 15; 9 studio ones and 11 respectively).


Well, it's Madonna, so she'll sell.

Her first single is simply atrocious though - it makes her look desperate and irrelevant. For that alone, I'm happy that she didn't get the No 1 spot on Billboard.
As weird as it sounds, using a little bit of the money to fund for handing out contraception in developing cities (especially in Africa) wouldn't sound bad. It would lower the birth rate, meaning that more money could be spent on each child, meaning that each child has a higher quality of food, education, and healthcare. Of course, a more widespread use of condoms would reduce the number of new HIV cases in developing countries.

Another use would be to fund for vaccination programs for malaria, cholera, typhoid, dysentery along with other diseases which kill people.
(edited 8 years ago)
I'd rather just not give them the money in the first place, then we don't have to just hope they're nice people or have a half decent understanding of how best to use the money.
Original post by *Stefan*
Well, it's Madonna, so she'll sell.

Her first single is simply atrocious though - it makes her look desperate and irrelevant. For that alone, I'm happy that she didn't get the No 1 spot on Billboard.


How did 'Living For Love' (her first single) make her look desperate and irrelevant? It's the song everyone thought appropriate and expected of her. (And it reached No 1 on dance - her record-extending forty-fourth there.)
I would buy out my college I used to go to then fire all the members of staff there who bullied me.
Reply 18
Original post by Little Toy Gun
How did 'Living For Love' (her first single) make her look desperate and irrelevant? It's the song everyone thought appropriate and expected of her. (And it reached No 1 on dance - her record-extending forty-fourth there.)


My mistake (not really following her): I meant "B*** I'm Madonna" - sooo bad.

"Living for Love" isn't anything spectacular but at least it's respectable.
Blackjack and hookers, naturally.

Honestly though, I would be very wary about how much gets sent to various charity causes in Africa. The last thing you would want is to donate all that money for it to be swallowed up in the black hole that is Africa.

Quick Reply

Latest