>>particularly generous man until he donates about 58 billion dollars, and
>>then he still has 1000 million left!
> Oh so now just giving isn't enough -- you have to give to the point that
> it actually damages you financially in order for it to count? Wow.
dollars* left, exactly?
(My whole point was that his wealth is excessive, and that the world
would be better off if someone transferred the excess part to the poorer
parts of the world, *without* making Bill poor himself.)
Wrong, when Bill's moneypit is so vast while people are starving? You
mean that isn't somehow "wrong"?
I'd gladly justify it if it needed justifying.
If I could hack into Bill's bank account and give 90 per cent of his
cash to the people who are dying of hunger or the like, if I had to
choose between leaving Bill excessively rich and relieving world hunger
even for a month, I don't think I'd need to think about it very long.
You see, there are two "wrongs" here, and I think one is worse than the
other. That still doesn't mean I condone stealing in general.
I never said we did ;)
It's not about Bill per se, he's just the perfect example of a
billionaire who has, in the face of the world's situation today, too
much money which would be better spent elsewhere.
No. I'm not even a particularly jealous person. I don't care how much
money Bill has, really. What I *do* care about is that some people are
allowed to make ridiculous sums of money (and don't work *nearly* so
hard, relatively speaking, to earn it) while lots of people are doomed
to live in the harshest forms of poverty.
That's what *I* have a slight problem with.
Regards, Ruud