Black Friday

@Maddus Mattus:You make a good point but I suspect Bll G is wise enough to appreciate that it is a two stage process.  Stage 1 is simply encouraging people to give, that is what 'giving Tuesday' is about (as far as I can tell).  Once the resources (time/goods/money or whatever) are available stage 2 is about making effective use of them - this surely has to encompass the value proposition that you talk about .

@Ian2: I applaud investing in third world countries, since they have labor enough, they just lack the capital to make efficient use of it. But, giving for the sake of giving, in my opinion, only serves to soothe the consience of the giver and does not help the receiver.

If Bill G really wanted to make a difference, he should take up arms against the status quo that is keeping Africa poor. Subsidies on agriculture in the EU for instance and other foreign aid projects, building roads that no African will ever drive on.

If Bill G really wanted to help, he should have stayed at Microsoft. He created more value for more people, then he ever can with his foundation. Every Microsoft employee is better off because of his ideas and work. Ultimately, windows even made Africa better off.

While we detest the forms of consumerism like we see in that video, it is also the system that brought us so much wealth.

@Maddus Mattus: If the receiver is literally starting to death, then receipt of money is their immediate concern.  If the receiver's children are at risk of death through dysentery  then receipt of money is their immediate concern.

Address the immediate concerns with charitable giving and then invest to raise them out of long-term poverty. That is what Bill Gates is doing, and it's what most of the charitable organisations are doing because it is the best course to address the two separate short and long term problems.

Herbie

27 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Ian2:  giving for the sake of giving, in my opinion, only serves to soothe the consience of the giver and does not help the receiver.

So given the above I would say that 'giving for the sake of giving' is a part of stage 1 (per my previous post), and definitely of value.  Stage 2 is then ensuring that the gift is used appropriately (and , if you like, is perceived as being valuable and empowering to the receiver.)

Wal-mart is evil.

24 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

While we detest the forms of consumerism like we see in that video, it is also the system that brought us so much wealth.

Brought wealth to whom? Besides the "wealth" we can derive from pillaging the Earth's resources, everything else is a zero-sum game. When somebody gets richer, somebody else is getting poorer. Consumerism does nothing more than shuffle money around, and this movement of money is only good insofar as it provides the basis in which money CAN flow from those with more of it to those with less of it. But just because it can flow in the right direction doesn't mean that it actually does. The main problem is that those with more money do not spend nearly as much on a percentage basis as those with less.

Wealth accumulation is overrated.

13 hours ago, Dr Herbie wrote

@Maddus Mattus: If the receiver is literally starting to death, then receipt of money is their immediate concern.  If the receiver's children are at risk of death through dysentery  then receipt of money is their immediate concern.

Address the immediate concerns with charitable giving and then invest to raise them out of long-term poverty. That is what Bill Gates is doing, and it's what most of the charitable organisations are doing because it is the best course to address the two separate short and long term problems.

Herbie

50 years of history is telling us that we never reach stage 2. While I see the need for aid, it just baffles me that we can't get past stage one.

Africa has more resources and farmland then any continent in the world, I'm baffled why they do not run the world and while other third world countries are able to get there on their own.

12 hours ago, cbae wrote

When somebody gets richer, somebody else is getting poorer.

No, clearly, no, hell no! This is so wrong on so many levels.

Am I worse off buying bread from a baker? If the answer is yes, I must be a baker!

When someone gets richer, society is telling them he's doing a good job.

12 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

Wealth accumulation is overrated.

Wealth accumulation is the only way out of poverty.

A couple of recent articles to help inform people on financial inequality:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/21/jesse-kline-the-american-dream-is-alive-and-well-in-canada/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/20/poor-getting-richer/

"Stated another way, in two decades, nine of every 10 of the lowest income earners were able to improve their lot in life; two in five of them ended up in the top 40% of income earners. Those who started in the middle were also able to command larger salaries as time went on: Approximately 70% of people in the second-lowest group were also able to move up at least one income group, and those who experienced a decrease in income mobility were most likely to have started in the top 20%.

The results of the study make sense: As people grow older, acquiring knowledge and skills along the way, they are able to garner a higher income. What this study shows is that contrary to those on the [redacted] who say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap actually gets smaller over time."

@Proton2:

Equal Opportunity Wednesday?

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Proton2:

Equal Opportunity Wednesday?

Either that or Hump day.

9 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

The results of the study make sense: As people grow older, acquiring knowledge and skills along the way, they are able to garner a higher income.

And as time moves on, prices increase and the cost of living goes up.  So what?

What this study shows is that contrary to those on the [redacted] who say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap actually gets smaller over time."

No, that is not what the study shows, and frankly, it does a good job of hiding the exact opposite.  When the income disparity jumps from 1:40 to 1:189, that is very easy to read as 'getting larger'.

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Wealth accumulation is the only way out of poverty.

I'm not poor. I will restate the obvious: Wealth accumulation is overrated. I call it materialism.

11 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

And as time moves on, prices increase and the cost of living goes up.  So what?

Inflation is accounted for in the study.

11 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

I'm not poor. I will restate the obvious: Wealth accumulation is overrated. I call it materialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

@cbae: "pillaging the Earth's resources"

Could you provide me with some examples of this "pillaging the Earth's resources".

5 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Could you provide me with some examples of this "pillaging the Earth's resources".

In Brazil, loggers burn or fell more than 2.7 million acres each year. More than 20 percent of rainforest in the Amazon has been razed and is gone forever since 1900 - equivalent to a land mass the size of Australia.

@Proton2:

3 days ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

No, clearly, no, hell no! This is so wrong on so many levels.

Am I worse off buying bread from a baker? If the answer is yes, I must be a baker!

As expected, the point flew right over your head. All you're doing is point out the benefits of division of labor, but I'll indulge you with your baker analogy vis-a-vis wealth distribution. You, personally, are better off buying from a baker, but that baker is named "Sara Lee" and the only ones getting rich are the executives at Sara Lee--not the "real" bakers that work there. And for every penny that you gave Sara Lee, it was a penny that the now-defunct Wonder Bread (once owned by Hostess) didn't make.

When someone gets richer, society is telling them he's doing a good job.

Uh, no.