Does J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter author, deserve to be a billionaire? [Politics Talk]

[grundle]

Does J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, deserve to be a billionaire?

Please answer "yes" or "no" in your response, and please explain why you chose that answer.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=13&u=/nm/20050717/ts_nm/arts_harrypotter_dc_13

Potter fatigue hits some as book sales tallied

By Mike Collett-White Sun Jul 17, 9:06 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Bookstores checked their tills on Sunday to tally sales of the sixth
Harry Potter installment, but a day after the eagerly awaited global launch the magic was wearing off for some.

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is widely expected to be the fastest-selling book in history, with British retailer Waterstone's forecasting that 10 million copies would have been snapped up worldwide during the first 24 hours of trade.

The early feedback was bullish. British book chain WH Smith reported sales of 13 books per second across the 391 shops it opened into the early hours of Saturday, compared with eight per second for the fifth Harry Potter adventure.

The launch, at one minute past midnight British time on Saturday, ended months of hype and elaborate steps to protect the contents of the penultimate chapter in the seven-story saga.

Children poured into book shops across the globe, many dressed as witches, wizards and other favorite Harry Potter characters. Author
J.K. Rowling read from the book at Edinburgh Castle, and she will be interviewed by a young fan on Sunday.

Underlining the anticipation surrounding the book, instant reviews appeared on the Internet within a few hours of the release, and most of them were favorable.

Young readers picked up on the darkness of the plot.

"With its dramatic, violent conclusion, this book is by far the darkest and unsettling HP yet," wrote 12-year-old Indigo Ellis in the Sunday Telegraph. "Maybe it will leave a few more seven-year-olds in tears. But it also makes it the best so far."

A sizeable minority of older readers, however, was less than impressed by the 607-page work.

"It's wordy, flabby and not very well edited -- perhaps a bit less inventive than previous ones," wrote Suzi Feay, literary editor of Britain's The Independent on Sunday. "We could have done with some better gags."

Robert McCrum, writing in the Observer newspaper, said: "The dominant theme of HP6 is the tying up of loose ends in preparation for the final volume, the fabled HP7."

PRICE WARS

Publishers and retailers will be less concerned about write-ups than sales.

Eyeing a huge marketing opportunity, publishers issued two hardback versions of the book on Saturday, one for adults and another for children.

Supermarkets, Internet stores and book shops engaged in a fierce round of discounting, with one British outlet offering the book to young buyers for 4.99 pounds ($8.80), less than one third of the recommended retail price.

<b>Rowling has been credited with winning over a new generation of young readers. British newspapers predict that her fortune, already estimated at $1 billion, was set to grow by 20 to 25 million pounds as a result of the first-day sales alone.</b>

"In these days of instant, easy celebrity attained by very little actual achievement, J.K. Rowling is a refreshing exception," wrote the Sunday Mirror tabloid.

For some, though, Sunday was about bursting the bubble of hype and secrecy surrounding the biggest book launch retailers around the world can remember.

When a handful of copies were sold before the deadline in Canada, purchasers were ordered not to disclose its contents, and, according to media reports, even to read it.

"Oh for a timely spell of reality," Roland White wrote in the Sunday Times.

"Let's keep things in perspective," he added. "Until Friday, the Harry Potter series had sold about 270 million copies worldwide. Which is considerably less than the one billion shifted by the late, rather unfashionable, Barbara Cartland."

[Rockmjd23]

Yes. She could write "101 ways to wipe your ass" for all I care as long as people out there buy her books then she deserves whatever money she gets.

[Groucho]

http://falconcrew.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ackbar1.gif

[OldDude]

Yes. How can you argue with anything that gets kids that excited about reading and is of reasonable quality. Have you considered a poll?

Basic rule of capitalism: He who appeals to the marketplace gets wealthy. It is not about "deserving" anything.

[grundle]

A poll would have been a good idea. I forgot that you can do that here.

But I was more interested in reading people's opinions, anyway.

[wmansir]

Here's a Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/26/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html) that breaks down her income.

I don't know if you can say she does or does not deserve it. I've never read the Potter books, but it does seem amazing that she is the first billion dollar author based on a single series.

[grundle]

Thanks to the administrator who just added the poll.

But I wanted this to be a political discussion, not a book discussion. I see you moved it from the politcal forum to the book forum. But you're the boss!

[grundle]

Here's a Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/26/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html) that breaks down her income.

I don't know if you can say she does or does not deserve it. I've never read the Potter books, but it does seem amazing that she is the first billion dollar author based on a single series.
Thanks for the article!

[grundle]

My answer is yes, because people chose to give their money to her when they chose to buy the books.

[Rockmjd23]

I'm just waiting to hear the logic behind voting no.

[CRM114]

I'm just waiting to hear the logic behind voting no.

Me too. Who would possibly vote No?

[grundle]

I'm just waiting to hear the logic behind voting no.
That's why I started this thread, and why I put it in the political forum. There are plenty of people who favor legislation of a maximum income. I'd like to hear their arguments.

[JasonF]

That's why I started this thread, and why I put it in the political forum. There are plenty of people who favor legislation of a maximum income. I'd like to hear their arguments.

"Plenty" is probably an exageration. While there are plenty of people who favor a graduated income tax with higher rates for upper brackets, there are very few people who favor a 100% bracket (or anything close to it for that matter).

[MrX]

Who would possibly vote No?

http://www.catholic.net/catholic_db/imagenes_db/the_pope_page/pope_benedict_xvi.jpg

[nemein]

Thanks to the administrator who just added the poll.

But I wanted this to be a political discussion, not a book discussion. I see you moved it from the politcal forum to the book forum. But you're the boss!


I moved it to the book forum because you just posted an article about the sales of the book and a poll question (although I guess someone else added the poll is what you are saying). There didn't seem to be much of a reason for it to be in the political forum since no political context was given..

[grundle]

So the poll was added by "someone." That's interesting.

The moderators can move the thread to wherever they believe is best. I can always start a new political thread without posting the Harry Potter article. Maybe in a few days. X told me not to start too many threads in any one day, and he's right.

[tasha99]

Yup. She deserves it, and her agent, editors, publishers, and publicists deserve a huge chunk, too. I think there are series out there that don't do as well as HP financially, but are just as good (hence, my belief that she has awesome support ). This is a market driven society though, and since she wrote great stories and knew how to sell them, good for her.

[X]

So the poll was added by "someone." That's interesting.I added the poll.

[fumanstan]

Yes. I don't see why not. Her books are great, appeal to people of all ages, and has children more excited about reading then i've never seen in my life time, which is a fantastic thing. You go girl! :)

[Breakfast with Girls]

Of course. She's created massive amounts of wealth for her publisher and tens of thousands of bookstore companies, who can then afford to hire on more people. Besides that, as others have said, anything that gets kids to excited about reading is fantastic in my book.

[resinrats]

There are plenty of people who favor legislation of a maximum income.
I've actually never heard of this before. Why would anyone feel that way? I'm betting they are hippie communists that know they are never going to get rich so they feel noone else should.

If some retarted law did get passed, why would people feel motivated to work beyond the level that gets them to that point? Why should they put in the effort if it won't get them some reward?

JKR has earned her money and deserves every penny she makes. She used her own tallent to write these books that are loved across the world by kids and adults alike. As others have said, it takes something special to get kids and adults this excited about a book (a huge book at that).

I even say that because of these books, she should earn a place amoung the worlds greatest authors along with Twain, Dickins and the others. They wrote books loved by people so no reason a modern author can't join their ranks.

[Patman]

Think about it, based on just the 10.8 million books shipped, that's over $300 million retail, and probably around $200 million in discounted sales, that's amazing for the first week of a book's release.

[Mordred]

That's why I started this thread, and why I put it in the political forum. There are plenty of people who favor legislation of a maximum income. I'd like to hear their arguments.I've never heard any propose a maximum income. How could they tax them more then?

The reason for voting no is pretty obvious though (I voted yes). The simple reason is that some probably feel JK Rowling is a crappy author with manufactured popularity while much better authors works are ignored or go unpublished and never receive any fame. It's the reason I don't think Britney Spears deserves to be a millionaire.

Mordred

[silentbob007]

Since when does talent always equal success? Whether she's a crappy author or not, that is still a horrible argument. People buy her books, thus she deserves her cut. If you are the best writer in the world, and nobody reads you, so what? A work actually has to be at least somewhat read to be influential.

[BKenn01]

Yes. She could write "101 ways to wipe your ass" for all I care as long as people out there buy her books then she deserves whatever money she gets.

Ditto

There are plenty of people who favor legislation of a maximum income.

Yes and there will always be lazy people who think that the producers of society owe them a living. Socialism, Communism, whatever ism you try to level the playing field does not work.

Often Capatilism is cold and cruel, unfair and sometimes plain evil, but it is the only system that has proven to work.

[Mordred]

Since when does talent always equal success? Whether she's a crappy author or not, that is still a horrible argument. People buy her books, thus she deserves her cut.It doesn't. Success is horribly unfair and rarely rewards those who deserve it. I didn't say it was a good argument, just a common one and easy to understand. You don't see it too often with Rowling, but you do a lot with Stephen King whom the literati considers lower than dirt.

[movielib]

"Plenty" is probably an exageration. While there are plenty of people who favor a graduated income tax with higher rates for upper brackets, there are very few people who favor a 100% bracket (or anything close to it for that matter).
Maybe, but at least one person doesn't want her kids (or other heirs) to get more than a tiny fraction of what she's made:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6223675#post6223675

[Cameron]

yes

[darkside]

Yes she does. There is no arguement against it that makes any sense to me. Stephen King has the same kind of crap said about him and people are just as wrong. If people are buying your books you are doing something right and deserve all the fame and fortune you get from it. Who cares if your writing is up to the quality of some English professor as long as people enjoy it.

[solipsta]

Of course she deserves it.

She's a marketing machine. The strategy is perfect.

[Joe Molotov]

If you can convince people to buy $1 Billion worth of your widgets, then you deserve to billionaire.

[Josh-da-man]

I voted no. J. K. Rowling doesn't not deserve her fortunes.

The woman is a whore of Satan who has turned an entire generation away from God. She should be burned at the stake.

[Giantrobo]

She made 36 million over the weekend. This from a woman who was on welfare.

Talk about having a <i>potter</i> to piss in....

[Josh H]

Of course. She's not exploiting anyone. She's writting great books that sell millions of copies. As long as people don't exploit others, they're entitled to however much money people are willing to shell out for their goods and/or services.

[silentbob007]

It doesn't. Success is horribly unfair and rarely rewards those who deserve it. I didn't say it was a good argument, just a common one and easy to understand. You don't see it too often with Rowling, but you do a lot with Stephen King whom the literati considers lower than dirt.

That's just because the literati are pissed that they can't find an audience with their own, condescending and completely ivory tower pieces of work .... ;)

[neiname]

J.K Rowling is one of my few people I actually respect. I find it remarkable that she was a divorced mother living on welfare and was able to construct a story so endearing that it has transformed millions of children and adults. She deserves every penny she has.

[grundle]

I added the poll.
Thank you for the Wild Gift, X!

[grundle]

I've actually never heard of this before. Why would anyone feel that way? I'm betting they are hippie communists that know they are never going to get rich so they feel noone else should.

If some retarted law did get passed, why would people feel motivated to work beyond the level that gets them to that point? Why should they put in the effort if it won't get them some reward?

JKR has earned her money and deserves every penny she makes. She used her own tallent to write these books that are loved across the world by kids and adults alike. As others have said, it takes something special to get kids and adults this excited about a book (a huge book at that).
Some people feel that way out of envy and jealousy. And you're right, there would be no motivation to work.

[grundle]

I've never heard any propose a maximum income. How could they tax them more then?
They couldn't tax them more, because there would be nothing to tax.

This is from the Green Party platform:


http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php

Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.

That tax bracket would generate zero tax revenue, because no one would have any income in that tax bracket. The policy is based on envy, or ignorance of economics, or both.

[uberjoe]

I haven't read any response to this thread yet, and I'm sure someone has already said this:

Boy, what a stupid question. As much as anyone can "deserve" money, she deserves having more than a billion dollars. You know why? Because she has it! She produced a product people wanted, people paid for it. End of argument.

[OldDude]

You don't see it too often with Rowling, but you do a lot with Stephen King whom the literati considers lower than dirt.

If the literati could actually write something interesting instead of "sleeping pills," I'm sure they'd laugh on their way to the bank with Stephen and graciously accept the approbation of their comrades.

[dtcarson]

"Talent" doesnt' necessarily equate to "success"
vis: Billboard charts from, oh, almost any year; half the hackfests on the Top 10 Paperbacks; pretty much any Neilsen ratings [or cancelled programs] from the last five years. Futurama and Firefly get cancelled, but by damn, there'll be another Big Brother come hell or high water.
She created a legal product, people are buying it. Sounds good to me.

[kms_md]

yes, the reasons for which have been well stated above.

[Josh-da-man]

Change the poll to Michael Moore and watch those numbers change...

[dtcarson]

Though I vehemently disagree with, well, virtually everything Michael Moore has said or done, and think he's an attention hogging windbag, my core thinking would still apply. He's got a product, that for some reason sells, more power to him.
I can wonder as to how much he gets or how many people buy it, the same way I wonder how one athlete is "worth" 500 million or whatever, but hey, that's the marketplace.
Ironically, the big business, "rich man" capitalist mentality that Moore and so many of his compatriots seem to detest, but from which he has no problem profiting.

[dmpre99]

I think she is an amazing writer. To have adults read "children's books" takes some great writing imo

[The Bus]

dmpre: Or children to read "adult books"... ;)

All I know is that college professors and teachers all across the world must be jubilant. What kids regularly read a story/saga that takes thousands of pages to explain?

[MovieExchange]

I'd go with partially. DC Comics and Neil Gaiman deserve some of that scratch as well. Harry's a carbon copy (in appearance) of the lead character from Books of Magic. Yes, I know, Neil has said that it's "probably just coincidence." Anyone familiar with comics should look at how many times Todd McFarlane had to screw Gaiman over to finally get him angry. The man is too easy going.

It does sadden me that so many Americans gladly give their money to a woman that dislikes or maybe even outright hates them, though.

[Filmmaker]

In a world where teachers, police, firefighters, military officers, etc. are paid pittances, and where hundreds of people are dying daily in Africa from preventable medicines, I find it hard to ever find justification on what any entertainers are paid. I vote no--distribute the wealth. The fact that so many are voting yes, though, means the American culture of celebrity will apparently remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future...

[MovieExchange]

In a world where teachers, police, firefighters, military officers, etc. are paid pittances, and where hundreds of people are dying daily in Africa from preventable medicines, I find it hard to ever find justification on what any entertainers are paid. I vote no--distribute the wealth. The fact that so many are voting yes, though, means the American culture of celebrity will apparently remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future...

So in other words, you support punishing some that make money because ou think that others deserve to make more money? How wonderfully communist of you.

Here's a thought - champion the cause of raising the salary for these people, they definitely deserve it. But leave out the whole "punish the innocent" aspect and try to find a new solution... because what you're saying now makes you look ignorant. Salaries paid to these people and money spent by people on the entertainment of their choice are two very different things.

[Filmmaker]

You misread me, my friend. I seek no punishment of people who make a lot of money (they earned it fair and square), nor do I seek legislation that forces a salary cap. As I implied in my post, I very much am in favor of substantially raising the salaries for teachers, firefighters, etc. I am also in favor of a societal shift where we do not place such a value on the services entertainers provide. That responsibility lies with the people, not the legislators. Finally, I am very much in favor of the grossly rich realizing how inherently inhuman it is to enjoy so much when others enjoy so little and willingly sharing much more of their wealth than anyone I currently see in entertainment doing...

Oh, and keep in mind, a idealistic point of view does not mean an ignorant point of view...try to focus your dissention on the post, not he who posts it--that is where true ignorance lies.

[Giantrobo]

Jk Rowling is a MILf who deserves my hands on her bum. :D:up:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/harry_potter_and_the_prisoner_of_azkaban/_group_photos/daniel_radcliffe42.jpg

[MovieExchange]

You misread me, my friend. I seek no punishment of people who make a lot of money (they earned it fair and square), nor do I seek legislation that forces a salary cap. As I implied in my post, I very much am in favor of substantially raising the salaries for teachers, firefighters, etc. I am also in favor of a societal shift where we do not place such a value on the services entertainers provide. That responsibility lies with the people, not the legislators. Finally, I am very much in favor of the grossly rich realizing how inherently inhuman it is to enjoy so much when others enjoy so little and willingly sharing much more of their wealth than anyone I currently see in entertainment doing...

Oh, and keep in mind, a idealistic point of view does not mean an ignorant point of view...try to focus your dissention on the post, not he who posts it--that is where true ignorance lies.

You said, and I quote "I vote no-- distribute the wealth."

How else is that to be interpreted other than you wanting to take money away from those who have it and give it to those that don't have as much?

And you seem to not understand that entertainers have such a high value because they're necessary. Would you really like to see an America where the general public has no escape from how much their day to day life sucks?

As for what people in entertainment are or are not sharing, how do you know? Just because they're not attention whores taking out full-page ads in every major publication detailing how much time and money they've donated to charity doesn't mean they aren't donating.

To a lesser extent, I understand your contempt of the entertainment industry. But in the end they're providing a service and people are paying what that service is valued to them. They in no way affect the way our teachers, firemen, policemen, etc get paid. That lies with local and federal governments that feel our tax dollars are better spent elsewhere.

And please understand that I did not call you ignorant. I said it made you LOOK ignorant. There's a difference.

Well, the OP should be happy, he's now getting the political discussion he wanted out of this :)

[pdinosaur]

i said no. i can't really put a finger on why i said no. i mean, i don't think she's unentitled to her hundred of millions/billions.

More or less, I don't entirely get what makes Harry Potter such a rampant success. I feel like I have these books because I'm supposed to. And I haven't even read beyond book 2 because it was just so frightfully formulaic.

I think from a business stance, give her the money. But I can be somehwat cynical, and from a literary perspective I don't think she does. Bookstores have been filled with books that all but say on the front cover 'please option me for a movie' from the likes of clancy, crichton, grisham, king et al. Now, we have on the rack below those books the 'i'm a fun serial children's book for adults, too.' like harry potter, tales of unfornate events, et al.

we complain in movie terms, especially of disney movies, that rather than coming up with a fresh story, characters are recycled and put through a different misadventure.

and i think that's true of harry potter. it makes me weary, the thought of yet another 'out to get harry' story.

anyway. i've not read past book 2 and seen HP3. maybe things change.

right now, i'm curious to see what JK does after HP7 is out. will she write something else? retire? to some extent, i'd consider her a sort of failure if she can't write something else. After all, it wouldn't be implausible to make the case that she's just a richer version of every other one hit wonder writer/singer/director/whatever in the world.

[JasonF]

So in other words, you support punishing some that make money because ou think that others deserve to make more money? How wonderfully communist of you.

Here's a thought - champion the cause of raising the salary for these people, they definitely deserve it. But leave out the whole "punish the innocent" aspect and try to find a new solution... because what you're saying now makes you look ignorant. Salaries paid to these people and money spent by people on the entertainment of their choice are two very different things.

Who said anything about punishing? If you want to raise the salaries for teachers, firefighters, policemen, dog catchers, or whoever, the money has to come from somewhere.

[Filmmaker]

You said, and I quote "I vote no-- distribute the wealth."

How else is that to be interpreted other than you wanting to take money away from those who have it and give it to those that don't have as much?

There's two ways to interpret it--distribute the wealth before it gets into the hands of entertainers, or after. You chose to assume the former, when I intended the less socialist latter.

And you seem to not understand that entertainers have such a high value because they're necessary. Would you really like to see an America where the general public has no escape from how much their day to day life sucks?

I fully recognize the importance behind the entertainment industry's contributions to our lives (hell, I want to one of them myself), but there is no way in Hell you ever convince we need them to the tune of literally millions and millions of dollars per individual more than teachers, firefighters, policemen, etc.

As for what people in entertainment are or are not sharing, how do you know? Just because they're not attention whores taking out full-page ads in every major publication detailing how much time and money they've donated to charity doesn't mean they aren't donating.

It doesn't take much research (hell, start with the MTV show CRIBS) to see that even the bleeding hearts of the entertainment industry own multiple mansions, fleets of cars, take extravagant vacations on a whim and own a plethora of things they flat out don't need or even often use.

To a lesser extent, I understand your contempt of the entertainment industry. But in the end they're providing a service and people are paying what that service is valued to them. They in no way affect the way our teachers, firemen, policemen, etc get paid. That lies with local and federal governments that feel our tax dollars are better spent elsewhere.

But it does highlight an ugly truth as to what the American public considers most important in this world when a celebrity can make millions and millions making one movie or one album, and a teacher won't even clear a single million in a lifetime.

[mgbfan]

I'll go "Yes and No."

Yes, she deserves it in the capitalistic sense that she can sell it based on the hype it gets. If you can do it and get away with it, you deserve it.

In a more artistic bent, NO, she absolutly does not deserve it. Harry Potter is nothing but neatly packaged cliche, void of all originality and creativity. It's a total hack-job, containing every fantasy cliche in the proberbial book. Based on the content of the books, she deserves to be out of work. She does not deserve that kind of money for doing nothing but packaging the ideas of others.

[Corvin]

I've actually never heard of this before. Why would anyone feel that way?

Why would anyone feel that way? I'm not saying that I'm for or against such action (a salary cap), but the fact that 20% of the world lives on a dollar or less a day might be one reason.

[Jeremy517]

More or less, I don't entirely get what makes Harry Potter such a rampant success. I feel like I have these books because I'm supposed to. And I haven't even read beyond book 2 because it was just so frightfully formulaic.


The first two are pretty weak compared to the rest (but still enjoyable). You haven't even really touched on the main story at all. You should keep going. They're quick reads, so it isn't like it would take you much time.

[dtcarson]

And if the reasoning is repackaged hackjobs, we certainly shouldn't start with Rowling. Turn on the radio, turn on the tv, or go to a movie theater. There's a lot worse cases of repackaged hack jobs, with more money 'earned', and in the case of some of those 'artists', the money they earn dwarfs the money their product pulls in.

[mgbfan]

And if the reasoning is repackaged hackjobs, we certainly shouldn't start with Rowling.
Nobody said she was alone. But the thread is about her, and she's a total hack. Sorry to step on toes, but it's true.

[DodgingCars]

Why would anyone feel that way? I'm not saying that I'm for or against such action (a salary cap), but the fact that 20% of the world lives on a dollar or less a day might be one reason.

But money isn't finite.

[Corvin]

But money isn't finite.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that capital is finite? I guess I just don't guess what you're trying to say with that post.

[pdinosaur]

And if the reasoning is repackaged hackjobs, we certainly shouldn't start with Rowling. Turn on the radio, turn on the tv, or go to a movie theater. There's a lot worse cases of repackaged hack jobs, with more money 'earned', and in the case of some of those 'artists', the money they earn dwarfs the money their product pulls in.

we're talking about billionaires here. how many tv, radio, movie stars can claim to be a billionaire?

the billionaire hackjob club is pretty exclusive. it might include oprah (who's an AMAZING hackjob), otherwise i don't know of any.

[DodgingCars]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that capital is finite? I guess I just don't guess what you're trying to say with that post.

It seemed like you were saying that some people make only a $1 a day because others make billions. Money isn't a finite resource. If I make $1 trillion dollars, it doesn't take money away from you.

[Filmmaker]

But if you don't need a trillion dollars (and despite whatever virtues capitalism has, and I recognize it has many, I don't see how it can ever be legitimately argued that someone ever really even needs a million), and someone else is living on $1 a day, does it not behoove you as the trillionaire to consider spreading a bit of your wealth to those in need rather than buying your 7th yacht, or your beachside castle with 17 rooms you'll never even visit during your tenure there?

[pdinosaur]

But if you don't need a trillion dollars (and despite whatever virtues capitalism has, and I recognize it has many, I don't see how it can ever be legitimately argued that someone ever really even needs a million), and someone else is living on $1 a day, does it not behoove you as the trillionaire to consider spreading a bit of your wealth to those in need rather than buying your 7th yacht, or your beachside castle with 17 rooms you'll never even visit during your tenure there?

i think there is a large amount of people who, when they can afford to be philanthropic, give away money and time. i don't think JK is different in that respect.

that said, a million dollars is not really a lot of money any more. not at all. i think most families could burn through a million dollars these days without ever being considered to have an 'excess' of money.

[DodgingCars]

But if you don't need a trillion dollars (and despite whatever virtues capitalism has, and I recognize it has many, I don't see how it can ever be legitimately argued that someone ever really even needs a million), and someone else is living on $1 a day, does it not behoove you as the trillionaire to consider spreading a bit of your wealth to those in need rather than buying your 7th yacht, or your beachside castle with 17 rooms you'll never even visit during your tenure there?

I didn't say I need a trillion. But I don't understand the need for an income cap. I actually think a cap would hurt the poor. Believe it or not there are wealthy people who are generous with their money. Let's say someone has decided to give 10% of their income to worthy causes. If you put an income cap on them, they'd be giving less.

And $1m isn't crap. My in-laws have a net worth of $1m and they are not rich at all. They just happen to own a home thats now worth close to $600k and have a 401k for them to retire with.

[dtcarson]

The good thing about capitalism, is that unlike many other governmental/societal layouts, it allows most people to free themselves from being only concerned about what they 'need', and creates enough excess wealth so that now people can think about what they 'want' as well. Does my coworker, soon to be married, no kids, "need" a 4500 square foot house? Not in the slightest. But they had the money, they had the credit, they wanted it, and to their credit, they don't flaunt it.
Voluntary charity and philanthrophy is actually getting more money now than almost never before. If that billion dollar earner has a lot more than s/he 'needs', many of them do donate time, resources, or money to other people in other forms.
I don't know if it 'behooves' them, and certainly there are selfish rich people who don't give a cent to anyone or anything other than themselves. There are also selfish 'poor' people who do the same, or who give five bucks to the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas time, act like an asshole to everyone around them the other 364 days of the year, and feel better about themselves because they 'donated'.
While I might spend/use 5 billion dollars differently from Rowling, I also don't necessarily look down upon her for how she uses it. it's her money, she earned it [that is, people bought what she had to sell], she can do what she wants with it [with some minor exceptions: funding terrorists or buying crack for schoolchildren, I would not like that kind of thing.]

And you're right, a million isn't what it used to be. My parents probably have a net worth of a million or so, and their assets sound nice: three houses including one lake house with probably close to an acre of land, two boats, two cars, some stocks, retirement from the state [teachers], and I'm sure a decent chunk in the bank. But they have lived frugally/thriftily, and continue to do so, for the past, oh 40 years. The lakehouse they bought almost 20 years ago being at the 'right place' at the 'right time'. 30-40 years of working, saving, and making wise investments. All the while giving to charity as well. I know there is a difference between 'income' and 'wealth/assets', but still.

[Filmmaker]

that said, a million dollars is not really a lot of money any more. not at all. i think most families could burn through a million dollars these days without ever being considered to have an 'excess' of money.

If a person makes $25,000 a year (and this is assuming they're married to someone of equal income), they can afford a starter home, a couple of economy cars, keep perhaps a single child fed, and see a couple of movies every now and again. Beyond that, in today's economy, they'll be living near paycheck-to-paycheck. I know because that's my life. Now if I were to make that $25,000 over a 40 year work span, I would have $1,000,000 at the end of my entire life of employment. $1,000,000 may not be what it once was but really, it's a LOOOONG way from a pittance.

But I don't understand the need for an income cap. I actually think a cap would hurt the poor.

I never made a case for the former and I agree with the latter. You're confusing me with another poster.

And $1m isn't crap. My in-laws have a net worth of $1m and they are not rich at all. They just happen to own a home thats now worth close to $600k and have a 401k for them to retire with.

A house worth $600,000 when people in Africa (hell, in many parts of the U.S.) live in literal shambles? Yes, they earned the house. Yes, they're entitled to the house. No, they shouldn't have to apologize for the house? But have they ever asked themselves why they need a $600,000 house? Is there really a meaningful need that this $600,000 house addresses that a house 1/3 the cost couldn't?

Does my coworker, soon to be married, no kids, "need" a 4500 square foot house? Not in the slightest. But they had the money, they had the credit, they wanted it, and to their credit, they don't flaunt it.

I'm sure that's reassuring to the children dying of AIDS in Africa that your co-worker doesn't flaunt his indiscriminate use of excess funds.

Voluntary charity and philanthrophy is actually getting more money now than almost never before. If that billion dollar earner has a lot more than s/he 'needs', many of them do donate time, resources, or money to other people in other forms.

But as you state, he still has a lot more than he needs; that is the problem. Even if he donates time and money, if he's left with more than he needs, and others are in such desperate need, then I argue he has not done enough. I think one the greatest philanthropists on the Earth right now is Bono from U2...but he still drives a Mercedes; I wonder how many African children, a cause close to his heart, could be saved if he cashed it in for a Honda Civic? I know at a certain point the question becomes "where do you draw the line", but personally, I'd have a real hard time driving a car that, in every meaningful way, accomplishes the same task as an auto a fraction of the cost when people are dying every day for lack of a pittance.

I know there is a difference between 'income' and 'wealth/assets', but still.

I wouldn't dismiss that difference so glibly; it's an important one.

[DodgingCars]

If a person makes $25,000 a year (and this is assuming they're married to someone of equal income), they can afford a starter home, a couple of economy cars, keep perhaps a single child fed, and see a couple of movies every now and again. Beyond that, in today's economy, they'll be living near paycheck-to-paycheck. I know because that's my life. Now if I were to make that $25,000 over a 40 year work span, I would have $1,000,000 at the end of my entire life of employment. $1,000,000 may not be what it once was but really, it's a LOOOONG way from a pittance.

Where? The minimum you could make to own a starter home in the Los Angeles would be well over $100k a year. The minimum to buy a starter home in Phoenix would be about $40k a year.


I never made a case for the former and I agree with the latter. You're confusing me with another poster.

Well, I hadn't read the whole thread. My post that you responded to was responding to someone who suggested an income cap may be a good idea. What was I to imply of your position then?


A house worth $600,000 when people in Africa (hell, in many parts of the U.S.) live in literal shambles? Yes, they earned the house. Yes, they're entitled to the house. No, they shouldn't have to apologize for the house? But have they ever asked themselves why they need a $600,000 house? Is there really a meaningful need that this $600,000 house addresses that a house 1/3 the cost couldn't?

They live in a middle class area of a working class city (The high school is largely minority and kinda dangerous). Their house is about 1600 sq ft and 3 bedrooms w/ not much of a yard. If they sold their house and moved into something for $200k they'd likely find themselves in a 1 bedroom condo in Compton (maybe!). It's expensive here.

They are actually very generous with their money. The donate over 10% of their income to charity.

I think it sucks that people if Africa are poor -- but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with someone in America owning a million dollar house...


I'm sure that's reassuring to the children dying of AIDS in Africa that your co-worker doesn't flaunt his indiscriminate use of excess funds.

It seems so easy for you to be so judgmental while your posting on the internet on a forum dedicated to DVDs.



But as you state, he still has a lot more than he needs; that is the problem. Even if he donates time and money, if he's left with more than he needs, and others are in such desperate need, then I argue he has not done enough. I think one the greatest philanthropists on the Earth right now is Bono from U2...but he still drives a Mercedes; I wonder how many African children, a cause close to his heart, could be saved if he cashed it in for a Honda Civic? I know at a certain point the question becomes "where do you draw the line", but personally, I'd have a real hard time driving a car that, in every meaningful way, accomplishes the same task as an auto a fraction of the cost when people are dying every day for lack of a pittance.

Any you could walk to work, live in a studio apartment in the poor neighborhood, eat top ramen, etc. What's your point?

[dtcarson]

So basically you think too many people have 'too much' money, as defined by you, and they should give it to others. Were you at Live 8 by any chance?

Perhaps the children dying of AIDS in Africa are, and should be, more concerned with their dictators and corrupt politicians embezzling and wasting the money given to them--GIVEN to them--by governments and private charities. Which is an even more grotesque use of 'indiscriminate use of excess funds' than someone buying themselves a nice, albeit large, place to live.
The answer is more capitalism to create wealth, not more charity to move it around. [Charity is good, but eventually it can create a dependency, and doesn't 'solve' anything.] I'm sure they're glad you're not flaunting your computer access and internet access and free time to spend debating how other people should spend their money.

"But as you state, he still has a lot more than he needs; that is the problem. "
I don't see that as a problem at all. Look around you, *you* have a lot more than you need.

And there is a difference between income and assets. If I make a million a year, that's different from having assets of a million. Maybe I bought a house for 150k after scrimping and saving, and after a 30 year mortgage paid it off so I now own it. The neighbourhood has grown, I'm retired, but my house is now worth 1 million. Am I "rich"? Should I contribute 10% of 1 million to charity annually, when my assets are 1 million, but my income is say 25k?

[Filmmaker]

Where? The minimum you could make to own a starter home in the Los Angeles would be well over $100k a year. The minimum to buy a starter home in Phoenix would be about $40k a year. ///// They live in a middle class area of a working class city (The high school is largely minority and kinda dangerous). Their house is about 1600 sq ft and 3 bedrooms w/ not much of a yard. If they sold their house and moved into something for $200k they'd likely find themselves in a 1 bedroom condo in Compton (maybe!). It's expensive here.

They are actually very generous with their money. The donate over 10% of their income to charity.


Fair enough; a million dollars here in Oklahoma would be nearly obscene, but in major metropolitan areas, perhaps not; still, the focus of this thread is on entertainers like J.K. Rowling who fart million dollar bills--let's put the focus back on that brand of entertainer. Even a middle-tier entertainer is a multimillionaire within a few years in the current entertainment industry.

Well, I hadn't read the whole thread. My post that you responded to was responding to someone who suggested an income cap may be a good idea. What was I to imply of your position then?

You don't have to imply anything; you need only read my posts before presuming to counter them.

I think it sucks that people if Africa are poor -- but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with someone in America owning a million dollar house...

It has everything to do with it if the person owns the house because they can, not because they need.

It seems so easy for you to be so judgmental while your posting on the internet on a forum dedicated to DVDs.

It appears to me we're having a two-way discussion; if you lament discussion not being related to DVDs then don't contribute. As far as being judgmental--guilty. As a man can't be expected to be validated when he decries the outcome of an election in which he didn't vote, I can't expect to change the world if I don't opine out loud about it.

And you could walk to work, live in a studio apartment in the poor neighborhood, eat top ramen, etc. What's your point?

My point is clear; are you willfully not recognizing it? If (as an example to clarify the larger principle) a $15,000 car and a $75,000 car accomplish the same basic task (leaving out such enjoyable but utterly inessential ammenities life moonroofs, heated leather seats, etc.), what does it say about the man who can afford either that he values said amenities more than the numerous lives he could single-handedly save with that $60,000 differential?

[Filmmaker]

So basically you think too many people have 'too much' money, as defined by you, and they should give it to others. Were you at Live 8 by any chance?

Perhaps the children dying of AIDS in Africa are, and should be, more concerned with their dictators and corrupt politicians embezzling and wasting the money given to them--GIVEN to them--by governments and private charities. Which is an even more grotesque use of 'indiscriminate use of excess funds' than someone buying themselves a nice, albeit large, place to live.
The answer is more capitalism to create wealth, not more charity to move it around. [Charity is good, but eventually it can create a dependency, and doesn't 'solve' anything.] I'm sure they're glad you're not flaunting your computer access and internet access and free time to spend debating how other people should spend their money.

Funny you should bring up Live 8; read up on the One.org campaign and you'll see how aid in 2005 has eveolved and got a lot smarter and more savvy since 1985.

I don't see that as a problem at all. Look around you, *you* have a lot more than you need.

But a daresay I've "drawn the line" quite a bit tighter than the people you defend.

And there is a difference between income and assets. If I make a million a year, that's different from having assets of a million. Maybe I bought a house for 150k after scrimping and saving, and after a 30 year mortgage paid it off so I now own it. The neighbourhood has grown, I'm retired, but my house is now worth 1 million. Am I "rich"? Should I contribute 10% of 1 million to charity annually, when my assets are 1 million, but my income is say 25k?

I already conceded this point--the post involved super-rich entertainers, so for the purpose of continued argument, let's keep the focus there.

[Josh H]

It appears to me we're having a two-way discussion; if you lament discussion not being related to DVDs then don't contribute. As far as being judgmental--guilty. As a man can't be expected to be validated when he decries the outcome of an election in which he didn't vote, I can't expect to change the world if I don't opine out loud about it.


Um, you missed his point. He meant your posting this on DVD Talk, meaning you have DVDs presumably, and maybe even a nice home theater, neither of which you NEED.

People that make a lot of money are going to buy things they don't need. Everyone does. Give a poor family in africa a million bucks and I'm sure they'll buy stuff they don't need.

It's just human nature. If you work and earn money, you're entitled to buy things you don't need.

I try not to be overly consumerist myself, and like to see the wealthy do the same. And many do, making sizeable contributions to charity. Do they donate every dollar they don't need? Of course not, and nor should they. That is not their responsibility to share all their excess wealth. They worked hard for it and should be able to enjoy, even moreso for the ones that make nice contributions to charity.

[Filmmaker]

But I noted that I'm guilty, too; however, as I stated, I've drawn the line tighter than these celebrities. Could the value of my DVDs help save lives in Africa? Sure. But compare that versus, say, Nick Lachey's and Jessica Simpson's absurd mansion, so large and outside their level of need that it was as bare of homey decoration when they moved out after three years as when they moved in. Does it not speak to someone vile in human nature to buy things truly without need (a house with dozens more rooms than occupants) just because you can when others suffer without? In the final equation, hey, at least I watch my DVDs...

[DodgingCars]

My point is clear; are you willfully not recognizing it? If (as an example to clarify the larger principle) a $15,000 car and a $75,000 car accomplish the same basic task (leaving out such enjoyable but utterly inessential ammenities life moonroofs, heated leather seats, etc.), what does it say about the man who can afford either that he values said amenities more than the numerous lives he could single-handedly save with that $60,000 differential?

And how do you do this in your own life?

[DodgingCars]

Um, you missed his point. He meant your posting this on DVD Talk, meaning you have DVDs presumably, and maybe even a nice home theater, neither of which you NEED.

People that make a lot of money are going to buy things they don't need. Everyone does. Give a poor family in africa a million bucks and I'm sure they'll buy stuff they don't need.

It's just human nature. If you work and earn money, you're entitled to buy things you don't need.

I try not to be overly consumerist myself, and like to see the wealthy do the same. And many do, making sizeable contributions to charity. Do they donate every dollar they don't need? Of course not, and nor should they. That is not their responsibility to share all their excess wealth. They worked hard for it and should be able to enjoy, even moreso for the ones that make nice contributions to charity.

Thank you. I thought it was clear.

[DodgingCars]

But I noted that I'm guilty, too; however, as I stated, I've drawn the line tighter than these celebrities. Could the value of my DVDs help save lives in Africa? Sure. But compare that versus, say, Nick Lachey's and Jessica Simpson's absurd mansion, so large and outside their level of need that it was as bare of homey decoration when they moved out after three years as when they moved in. Does it not speak to someone vile in human nature to buy things truly without need (a house with dozens more rooms than occupants) just because you can when others suffer without? In the final equation, hey, at least I watch my DVDs...

But your comparing your situation to Nick Lachey. Nick Lachey can say, yeah, but it's not like I'm Bill Gates! And Bill Gates can say, yeah, but it's not like I'm the Walmart family!

There's someone with less than you wondering why you live so well.

[DodgingCars]

Does it not speak to someone vile in human nature to buy things truly without need (a house with dozens more rooms than occupants) just because you can when others suffer without? In the final equation, hey, at least I watch my DVDs...

But you don't need DVDs. You need food, shelter, and clothing. Everything else is a want/luxury -- not a necessity.

[Josh H]

True, but like I said I don't think people have any responsibility to donate all their extra money if they're rich and live in the same houses and drive the same cars as the rest of us.

They should donate a good bit certainly, but they've earned the right to enjoy their good fortune as well IMO.

I find fault with celebrities who donate nothing or very little, but as long as they're giving a good bit I have no problems really with their houses cars etc. eventhough if I were in their shoes I would live more modestly and give more. Different strokes for different folks.

[DodgingCars]

I find fault with celebrities who donate nothing or very little, but as long as they're giving a good bit I have no problems really with their houses cars etc. eventhough if I were in their shoes I would live more modestly and give more. Different strokes for different folks.

Exactly. I think it's perfectly fine for people to live well as long as they also give well.*




*I just made that up!

[benedict]

Rowling has been credited with winning over a new generation of young readers. British newspapers predict that her fortune, already estimated at $1 billion, was set to grow by 20 to 25 million pounds as a result of the first-day sales alone.Personally, I take these "Rich List" wealth guestimates with a handful of salt. If she offered to sign away all her book and film royalties and merchandising rights bids might reach a billion but no way [IMNSHO] has she got near half of that figure in the bank.

To the best of my knowledge she has not (yet) become a UK tax exile so for those that speculate as to her charitable donations remember that she is contributing significantly to the public purse....

.... to answer the original question, I think she deserves all monies she has earned. She used to be a welfare mum and now she has captured the imagination of a generation of kids and hit the big time. She did not have to write the book and the kids did not have to buy it. She did, they did and now she is reaping her rewards.

[tasha99]

Thank you for the Wild Gift, X!



:rimshot:

[Filmmaker]

And how do you do this in your own life?

Frankly, that's none of your business. I don't mean to be rude, but I believe charity to be a very private affair. As I mentioned before, I live paycheck-to-paycheck, so I can do woefully little, which pains me, but I do what I can and take some comfort from knowing that I can look around my house and see very little that is unused, wantonly extravagant or could be accomplished by much cheaper means.

But your comparing your situation to Nick Lachey. Nick Lachey can say, yeah, but it's not like I'm Bill Gates! And Bill Gates can say, yeah, but it's not like I'm the Walmart family!

There's someone with less than you wondering why you live so well.

This is getting repetitive; I've already clarified that I carry my own guilt in this regard, but the gap between my income and the meeting of my needs is a fraction of a fraction's fraction less than any of the people to whom you refer, which would make them full of shit if they griped that they couldn't do more, or that their extragant mansions were justified in the face of others' poverty.


But you don't need DVDs. You need food, shelter, and clothing. Everything else is a want/luxury -- not a necessity.

There's an argument to be made against this line of thought; one that finds art appreciation to be a type of psychological need. I recognize it's not in the bottom three of Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs, but DVDs (more specifically, the films featured on them) do fill a need in my life so the "luxury" accusation is, at best, a gray one.

[dtcarson]

If charity is a private affair, then why do you care so much about how much Rowling or Bono or Gates is giving? Seems to me it's only private when it's you, but when it's one of those damn rich people, well, they should have to justify their purchases and 'give back' at a level determined satisfactory by you.

Hmm...so You need DVD's to satisfy some "psychological need". [What psychological need is only satisfied by owning "Elf" or "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within"?] What if Bono has a "psychological need" that appreciates a quality example of complex engineering like a Mercedes?
'Art appreciation'. And of course the 'gray area' in that is that virtually *any* creative work can be termed 'art'. Why, even JK Rowlings books are a form of art.

The only justification someone needs for an 'extravagant mansion' in my mind is, "I can afford it, and I wanted it." I don't claim or want to be the moral arbiter of how everyone else spends--or uses--their money that they earned from producing something [again, assuming it's spent on legal things, not huge amounts of cocaine or something.]

I haven't heard many of them say they couldn't do more, or trying to justify their extravagant homes. Virtually everyone could do more--even you. You could rent or borrow dvd's rather than buying them, and use that extra money to 'help' people. After all, even if you 'need' dvd's, do you 'need' 750 of them?

[pdinosaur]

But you don't need DVDs. You need food, shelter, and clothing. Everything else is a want/luxury -- not a necessity.

i really think that's over simplfying things. i would agree with filmmaker in that dvds are a means of filling a different kind of need.

[Josh H]

i really think that's over simplfying things. i would agree with filmmaker in that dvds are a means of filling a different kind of need.

And so can sports cars and mansions. It's a gray argument.

I'll say it again. Rich people can buy whatever they want with their money and I have no problems as long as they give well too.

They don't, an no one should IMO, have this obligation Filmmaker thinks they have to give the majority of their expendable income to charity.

[Filmmaker]

If charity is a private affair, then why do you care so much about how much Rowling or Bono or Gates is giving? Seems to me it's only private when it's you, but when it's one of those damn rich people, well, they should have to justify their purchases and 'give back' at a level determined satisfactory by you.

It is private in terms of making claims; however, I can evidence what these celebrities buy that could have been (IMO) better spent saving lives instead of going to waste as a public representation of wealth. In other words, I don't need or even want to know who celebrities contribute to, nor do I intend to tell anyone where my charity dollars go; to make public claims of such strikes me as a most despicable form of bragging--I simply seek to make the claim that if I see you on "Cribs" with ten Mercedes around back, then I accuse you of valuing things and the appearance of status more than saving lives or meaningfully bettering the world. That's all.

Hmm...so You need DVD's to satisfy some "psychological need". [What psychological need is only satisfied by owning "Elf" or "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within"?]

Frankly, I read this as cattiness; I'll decline to take the bait.

What if Bono has a "psychological need" that appreciates a quality example of complex engineering like a Mercedes?

It doesn't equate. I can only enjoy films on DVD; VHS is disappearing and, for what titles are available, pan-and-scan destroys the inherent artfulness on display. LaserDiscs are dead. There is no other format that will meet my needs for less cost. Bono can appreciate fine engineering all he wants, but if he chooses to buy a $75,000 car when the same basic funcion of the car can be performed by one at $15,000, then he's made a value judgement that he ranks fine engineering above the life and well being of another individual(s).

'Art appreciation'. And of course the 'gray area' in that is that virtually *any* creative work can be termed 'art'. Why, even JK Rowlings books are a form of art.

I think you're drifting far off-course here; I'm not challenging readers/appreciators of her books, I'm challenging her willful distribution of her own wealth. Stay on target.

The only justification someone needs for an 'extravagant mansion' in my mind is, "I can afford it, and I wanted it." I don't claim or want to be the moral arbiter of how everyone else spends--or uses--their money that they earned from producing something [again, assuming it's spent on legal things, not huge amounts of cocaine or something.]

Well, I guess you're a better man than me then. :rolleyes: What's the point of a statement like this? You've stated your case, I've stated mine. Why try to press the case that somehow your view is more "evolved" than mine?

Virtually everyone could do more--even you. You could rent or borrow dvd's rather than buying them, and use that extra money to 'help' people. After all, even if you 'need' dvd's, do you 'need' 750 of them?

I don't know anyone who has more than 10 DVDs (sad but true) and I rewatch to a degree that would make renting far less financially sound than just buying outright. As far as the number I own, each film offers a unique experience. Lastly, and let me drill this home because you flat out seem unwilling or unprepared to recognize the point I've made multiple times. If I have $20 spending money (and I'm often lucky to have that) at the end of the month and I "blow" it on a DVD, I daresay I've still committed less of a "sin" against the poor than a multi-millionaire buying a $5 million palace with 17 rooms they'll never even visit.

[lysander]

I haven't read all the other posts, so this may be repetitive, but I'm trying to get my post count up.

At least she did something to get her money. She created something. If society deems it is something so great that they are willing to pay for it, then she has earned it.

As opposed to rich kids who inherit fortunes. Those are the ones I despise-



mainly out of jealousy.

[benedict]

John D.Rockefeller Jr said: ".... every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty".

See also, commentaries on the concept of "noblesse oblige":In the book Athens on Trial, Jennifer Tolbert Roberts provides a perfect example of noblesse oblige in the liturgies of ancient Athens--public burdens assigned to the wealthy such as outfitting warships, holding banquets and training choruses for dramatic performances. She notes that “The rich were understandably ambivalent about exercising this sort of ‘privilege,’ noblesse oblige could be very expensive.”

[benedict]

Striving, desperately, to maintain the literary context....Thus, all unread in philosophy, Daylight preempted for himself the position and vocation of a twentieth-century superman. He found, with rare and mythical exceptions, that there was no noblesse oblige among the business and financial supermen. As a clever traveler had announced in an after-dinner speech at the Alta-Pacific, "There was honor amongst thieves, and this was what distinguished thieves from honest men." That was it. It hit the nail on the head. These modern supermen were a lot of sordid banditti who had the successful effrontery to preach a code of right and wrong to their victims which they themselves did not practise. With them, a man's word was good just as long as he was compelled to keep it. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL was only applicable to the honest worker. They, the supermen, were above such commandments. They certainly stole and were honored by their fellows according to the magnitude of their stealings..... Jack London (http://london.thefreelibrary.com/) in "Burning Daylight (http://london.thefreelibrary.com/Burning-Daylight)".

[Josh H]

If I have $20 spending money (and I'm often lucky to have that) at the end of the month and I "blow" it on a DVD, I daresay I've still committed less of a "sin" against the poor than a multi-millionaire buying a $5 million palace with 17 rooms they'll never even visit.

I don't think either is a "sin" against the poor. The millionaire may be donating millions in addition to buying the palace, so it balances out.

And again, people have no obligation to live like middle class people and donate the rest of their wealth. Donate well and they can spend the rest on what they want.

It's great to help others, but people also have to help themselves and not rely on wealth redistribution to the degree you are naively advocating.

[Filmmaker]

They don't, an no one should IMO, have this obligation Filmmaker thinks they have to give the majority of their expendable income to charity.

Fair enough, but isn't this discussion really boiling down to the "I don't agree with you" "well I don't agree with you" "well, that may be but I still don't agree with you" point? We've all stated our positions clearly enough...now we're just spinning our wheels. I don't know about you but I'm getting bored. Live you life as you see fit; do you really need my approval???

[Filmmaker]

I don't think either is a "sin" against the poor. The millionaire may be donating millions in addition to buying the palace, so it balances out.

I'm sure your specious form of math is a comfort to the untold villages that could have been saved if said celebrity had bought a house that legitimately met his needs for several million less. I'm aghast that you dare accuse me of naivete (a move, by the way, of which I don't approce; disagree with me all you want, but you can pocket your insults and presumptions of my character and intelligence), then follow it with a statement like this.

Oh and lastly, my previous post still applies. I think we've killed any progress in this discussion.

[pdinosaur]

And again, people have no obligation to live like middle class people and donate the rest of their wealth. Donate well and they can spend the rest on what they want.


I would ask, if i donate 25% of my income, but spend 50% on true extravagances (bentleys, outrageous mansions, etc), am i donating well?

i would say no.

[DodgingCars]

Wow.

[dtcarson]

"I daresay I've still committed less of a "sin" against the poor than a multi-millionaire buying a $5 million palace with 17 rooms they'll never even visit."

This to me says it all, that you think someone spending money in a way they want is a 'sin' against the 'poor' who somehow could all be Saved and Live in Happiness if only the rich person gave another million dollars. And of course the fact that you're trying to justify your purchasing of dvd's is very revealing as well.

Renting versus buying: Blockbuster Online, unlimited rentals, 16 bucks a month. If your 750 dvd's cost an average of 10 bucks each, you could get BBO for 468 months for that.

The Rowlings books-as-art comment: You buy dvds because they're 'art'. Someone makes money. If those people who make that money don't turn a sufficient percentage of their income/assets into charity, then by choosing to purchase their goods, you're part of the problem as well, you're merely helping them buy their 17 room mansion.

If you see me on Cribs with ten cars or whatever, accuse me of whatever you want. Public claims of charity you term as 'bragging', and yet, haven't most of your posts here included some phrasing as to how good and dutiful you are with how much you give to charity, or the reverse, that if someone *else* doesn't prove it with everything he buys, then he is 'sinning'. Maybe Bono did buy a 75k Mercedes, but maybe he donates 10 million a year. Are you begrudging him the purchase of the car? If so, then again, the argument can easily be made that *any* luxury should be forgone, to donate to charities. Yes, he could buy a Kia instead of a Mercedes. You could rent a dvd instead of buying them. Have you ever eaten out? Think of the poor children who could have been fed on that Value Meal! Hell, I assume you have a computer--you have a computer and internet access, when millions of people around the world don't even have clean drinking water?!?

If you're going to hold the rich [ie, wealthier-than-you-or-me] to this bizarre standard where they are 'sinning' by actually spending their money on themselves rather than donating every extra farthing to charity, you need to apply the same standard to yourself. And if you are going to say that people shouldn't buy things they don't "need", the same applies.

Should people give to charity? Sure. How much and what they give--money, time, knowledge, labor--is up to them and their conscience.
Should people *have* to give to charity? No. Forced charity is not 'charity', it's theft. Or taxation. Well, same thing.

Is it any of your business how much Bono or Rowling gives to charity? No, since just as you state, it's also none of my business how much you give. It's also none of your business what else they buy with their 'extra' money that they don't 'need', just like it's really none of my business what you buy.

Is it anyone's business to decide how much one person [other than you, of course] 'needs'? Unless you're Karl Marx or a dictator, no.

Back ontopic: Does she 'deserve' to be a billionaire [assuming she is]? Sure, why not. She worked to produce something that people wanted and were willing to pay for.

[Filmmaker]

This to me says it all, that you think someone spending money in a way they want is a 'sin' against the 'poor' who somehow could all be Saved and Live in Happiness if only the rich person gave another million dollars.

You insult me with your misconstrued spin on what I said. I'll decline to pursue it further.

And of course the fact that you're trying to justify your purchasing of dvd's is very revealing as well.

Revealing of what? I've defended how art appreciation contributes to an individual's mental and emotional health; it has real merit unto itself. There is no other cheaper format whereby to enjoy films than DVDs, so what ugly truth have I revealed about myself. Again, I realize that money spent on DVDs could be put to better, less self-serving, use, but I've said many times that I am guilty along with those celebrities agaisnt whom I'm making accusations. THE ISSUE IS A MATTER OF DEGREE! If I let a child die by buying a DVD, Mr. Celebrity kills villages. Dear God, please won't you grasp that.

Renting versus buying: Blockbuster Online, unlimited rentals, 16 bucks a month. If your 750 dvd's cost an average of 10 bucks each, you could get BBO for 468 months for that.

That's a lot of work for faulty math because it doesn't take into account the rewatchability factor (which, even being "unlimited", is limited by units allowed at any given single time for rent). Add to that the fact that I find Blockbuster to be perhaps the single most unethical business in America at this point, and I'll pass (though I realize you'll just change the business to Netflix or somesuch, but I have to argue 'em as you give 'em). Even if we take your mathmatical argument as accurate at face value, it still doesn't address the matter of degree I mentioned above.

The Rowlings books-as-art comment: You buy dvds because they're 'art'. Someone makes money. If those people who make that money don't turn a sufficient percentage of their income/assets into charity, then by choosing to purchase their goods, you're part of the problem as well, you're merely helping them buy their 17 room mansion.

I find that to be an especially weak argument. Just as I don't believe in the philosophy of holding people accountable for "the sins of their fathers", I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to be held accountable for how a person spends the revenue they take from that individual buying that person's wares. People are responsible for their own actions--if there's any great truth to life that has become obsured and ignored in the modern age, it is this.

If you see me on Cribs with ten cars or whatever, accuse me of whatever you want. Public claims of charity you term as 'bragging', and yet, haven't most of your posts here included some phrasing as to how good and dutiful you are with how much you give to charity, or the reverse, that if someone *else* doesn't prove it with everything he buys, then he is 'sinning'. Maybe Bono did buy a 75k Mercedes, but maybe he donates 10 million a year. Are you begrudging him the purchase of the car? If so, then again, the argument can easily be made that *any* luxury should be forgone, to donate to charities. Yes, he could buy a Kia instead of a Mercedes. You could rent a dvd instead of buying them. Have you ever eaten out? Think of the poor children who could have been fed on that Value Meal! Hell, I assume you have a computer--you have a computer and internet access, when millions of people around the world don't even have clean drinking water?!?

I say again and again and again that a) it is a matter of degree and b) everyone, middle class to celebrity, can and should understandably have a "line in the sand" where their charity must end, but you're trying to ignore that and posit the theory that, since charity vs. income/want vs. need can be deconstructed down to the nth of an nth degree, why even acknowledge or validate the issue at all, and I think that's faulty, even destructive, thinking. It boils down to "I can't fix the world, so why even bother?"

Should people give to charity? Sure. How much and what they give--money, time, knowledge, labor--is up to them and their conscience.

Interesting--you will not allow me to have my own feelings of conscience regarding the state of the world and my fellow Man's contributions or lack thereof to it?

Is it any of your business how much Bono or Rowling gives to charity? No, since just as you state, it's also none of my business how much you give. It's also none of your business what else they buy with their 'extra' money that they don't 'need', just like it's really none of my business what you buy.

It is none of your business because I believe discussing one's own contributions to charity is crass and unsavory and self-aggrandizing. People are still free to judge me according to what I take from the world versus what I give to it, however.

Is it anyone's business to decide how much one person [other than you, of course] 'needs'? Unless you're Karl Marx or a dictator, no.

Sound like a man desperate to legitimize purchase of a $75,000 car. Why do you so desperately seek my approval of your lifestyle choices?

[Mordred]

I'm just thinking of the starving children in Ethiopa lying in the dirt by the side of the road under the hot sun while they slowly die of dysentary and wonder if they think you need 750 DVDs.

I'm guessing you can figure out where I'm going with this.

For the record, I'm quite confident the children wouldn't have a problem with me owning 200 DVDs as it's such a small number.

[pdinosaur]

um, it's getting out of hand here.

:grouphug:
:nopanic:
:beer2:
:horse:

fun smilies!!

[Filmmaker]

I'm just thinking of the starving children in Ethiopa lying in the dirt by the side of the road under the hot sun while they slowly die of dysentary and wonder if they think you need 750 DVDs.

One...last...time...dear...God.

If you can show me a way where I can meet my need for film appreciation for measurably less money than via DVDs in the same manner that I illustrated that a $15,000 car can do the same basic function as a $75,000, then please quit pissing around the bush and do so. If you are not even prepared to agree that art appreciation fills a need every bit as much as a want, then we have a fundamental disagreement and our debate will have nowhere to go from there.

[tasha99]

One...last...time...dear...God.

If you can show me a way where I can meet my need for film appreciation for measurably less money than via DVDs in the same manner that I illustrated that a $15,000 car can do the same basic function as a $75,000, then please quit pissing around the bush and do so. If you are not even prepared to agree that art appreciation fills a need every bit as much as a want, then we have a fundamental disagreement and our debate will have nowhere to go from there.

Your public library or Netflix. Or taped off tv. If you reply that having to wait for a rental is too big of an inconvenience, I have to wonder at your sincerity. Surely a little inconvenience is worth a child's life.

(BTW, I'm being facetious. Equating 750 DVD's with a need is ludicrous, but I don't begrudge you your having them; I just begrudge you your self-righteousness. Your DVD collection is not any different from Bono's Mercedes, though I'm guessing the 750 DVD's represent a much larger percent of your net worth than Bono's car does of his.)

[DodgingCars]

One...last...time...dear...God.

If you can show me a way where I can meet my need for film appreciation for measurably less money than via DVDs in the same manner that I illustrated that a $15,000 car can do the same basic function as a $75,000, then please quit pissing around the bush and do so. If you are not even prepared to agree that art appreciation fills a need every bit as much as a want, then we have a fundamental disagreement and our debate will have nowhere to go from there.

I'd say you don't have any real need for film appreciation. It's a ridiculas argument to say that owning DVDs is needed for mental and emotional health.

And if you want to keep arguing degrees, then let's go with the fact that there are people with far less than you -- who could argue that you are living far too well and could live as humbly as they are. So maybe Bill Gates could save a village by not buying a ferarri, you can save a man by not buying a DVD, and Joseph in India can give his neighbor a days worth of food by not buying that bicycle and walking to work instead.

The point is, we can all live with less and to be all self-righteous and judgemental about how others live seems very hypocritical when you don't seem to be living that humbly yourself.

[Josh H]

I would ask, if i donate 25% of my income, but spend 50% on true extravagances (bentleys, outrageous mansions, etc), am i donating well?

i would say no.


What "donating well" means is fairly subjective. I'd say that ratio is fine in my eyes. People should be able to enjoy the money they've earned on their own. Donating 25% of money one earns to help others is extremely generous imo.

I don't mean to be cold, but we live in a fend for yourself world, and I have not problem with that. I think we have some obligation to help others, but not to an extent that you're donating most, or even half, of you expendable income that you earned to charity.

[Josh H]

I'm sure your specious form of math is a comfort to the untold villages that could have been saved if said celebrity had bought a house that legitimately met his needs for several million less. .

True, and I say they have some obligation to donate.

But people also have an obligation to fend for themselves, survival of the fittest and all that.

I think the level of charitable contributions are pretty decent now, especially to places like Africa. The biggest part of the problem is that the contributions are being stolen by the governments in these poor nations, or used poorly in general (i.e. not in ways to permanently improve the economies and infrastructures in these places.).

[Filmmaker]

Your DVD collection is not any different from Bono's Mercedes, though I'm guessing the 750 DVD's represent a much larger percent of your net worth than Bono's car does of his.)

His car, his multiple homes, his extensive vacations, his private studios, hotels, airplanes, etc. etc. etc. Pardon my French but give me a fucking break. Bono and other such celebrities live in a world where they will never need for ANYTHING. I, in the meantime, live paycheck to paycheck with the occasional perk of a DVD or trip to the movie theater to break up the monotony of working my ass of for instantly vanishing paychecks. I'm not asking for you to cry for me, Argentina, and I realize I'm a man of some wealth to most Africans, but if you have any decency, you can't possibly equate my situation on any scale with a celebrity's...

[Filmmaker]

I'd say you don't have any real need for film appreciation. It's a ridiculas argument to say that owning DVDs is needed for mental and emotional health.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement; you go your way and I'll go mine.

And if you want to keep arguing degrees, then let's go with the fact that there are people with far less than you -- who could argue that you are living far too well and could live as humbly as they are. So maybe Bill Gates could save a village by not buying a ferarri, you can save a man by not buying a DVD, and Joseph in India can give his neighbor a days worth of food by not buying that bicycle and walking to work instead.

Ergo, the rich man carries a weighter responsibility than I.

The point is, we can all live with less and to be all self-righteous and judgemental about how others live seems very hypocritical when you don't seem to be living that humbly yourself.

If my DVD collection (the vast majority of which was purchased at only 60% of retail value) in a starter house with regular cable, an old TV, a stereo receiver without rear speakers, a parent-loaned computer on a sale-priced offering of 50% off DSL with two economy cars and a money-sucking baby with more bills coming in than funds that can usually go out puts me outside the class of "humble", then bring me more wine, cheese and women. It's good to be the king! :rolleyes: If you are going to call me out as a hypocrite, you fail because I've already admitted my own guilt in this matter. If you're going to equate the level of my guilt with a celebrity's, then frankly, I'm rather sickened by such willingness to justify the gross waste of wealth that almost uniformly takes place at that level of income. But hey, what more can I say? None of you are bringing anything NEW to the discussion; you keep beating the same drums in some desperate need to either a) secure my approval of your lifestyle choices (which you aren't going to get, and might I add it's rather sad to need approval from some stranger on an online forum) or b) spotlight me as a judgmental jerk (to which I'd say, very well--how else to change the world but to judge it and volunteer alternatives--if you don't dig it, then tell me to kiss your ass and move on)...

[Josh H]

I, in the meantime, live paycheck to paycheck with the occasional perk of a DVD or trip to the movie theater to break up the monotony of working my ass of for instantly vanishing paychecks.

Thta's fishy to me. I don't see how one can get up to 750 dvds if they're TRULY living paycheck to paycheck. I'm a poor grad student, got my first DVD player for X-mas in 1998 when I was a freshman and colloge, and have always been pretty much paycheck to paycheck, and have only accumulated 180 some DVDs due to financial limitations.

But of course you may have put them on credit cards, thus paying interest on them that could have gone to charity. ;)

[DodgingCars]

Well...

2 debates now and I think I finally learned my lesson.

[grundle]

See?

This is why I started this thread in the political forum.

(It's OK that the moderator moved it. I'm just making an observation, that's all.)

[Filmmaker]

Thta's fishy to me. I don't see how one can get up to 750 dvds if they're TRULY living paycheck to paycheck. I'm a poor grad student, got my first DVD player for X-mas in 1998 when I was a freshman and colloge, and have always been pretty much paycheck to paycheck, and have only accumulated 180 some DVDs due to financial limitations.

I'll be the first to admit that I went a little bug shit the first few years DVD was out, and found it a bit easier to be self-serving; at the time, I didn't have a massive college loan, a kid, a house or a car payment. My lifestyle has dramatically improved since then, but my financial comfort level from check to check is much more strained. Now that we've effectively deconstructed my personal lifestyle, any chance you'd like to even pretend you're going to address the actual issues I've raised, or are you one of these duck-and-runners who like to grab the most inessential bone in a debate and chew it to the marrow to the exclusion of all else?

[Filmmaker]

See?

This is why I started this thread in the political forum.

(It's OK that the moderator moved it. I'm just making an observation, that's all.)

He he... ;)

So, grundle, now that you have multiple feedback on the yes and the yes-nots, what's your take on the issue? What's the story behind your curiosity regarding this issue?

[Josh H]

...any chance you'd like to even pretend you're going to address the actual issues I've raised, or are you one of these duck-and-runners who like to grab the most inessential bone in a debate and chew it to the marrow to the exclusion of all else?

I've addressed them repeatedly by saying I think people who are rich should donate, but are entitled to their luxury items and that we have no real obligation to help others to the extent you support. See my various replies above. Including, namely, this one:

True, and I say they have some obligation to donate.

But people also have an obligation to fend for themselves, survival of the fittest and all that.

I think the level of charitable contributions are pretty decent now, especially to places like Africa. The biggest part of the problem is that the contributions are being stolen by the governments in these poor nations, or used poorly in general (i.e. not in ways to permanently improve the economies and infrastructures in these places.).

[Corvin]

I've held back from this discussion for a while because I hate when people proselytize their ideologies and try to force them on others. Nonetheless, here I am.

I don't mean to be cold, but we live in a fend for yourself world, and I have not problem with that.

And why should you have a problem with the how the world is set up? You are---we all are---in a position of relative privilege. How would your views change if you were born destitute in Africa, if you lived in the poorer Latin American countries, or were working as a child laborer in Asia? Would you still have no problem with how this cold world is set up?

To respond to my own questions, I certainly would. Such reasoning has forced me to the realization that I really do live a privileged life. As a result of my empathy, I give to those who are less fortunate. To make it a non-issue later, I give close to 5% of my overall income to charity (namely UNICEF).

I don't think it's fair or realistic to ask people to give up their hobbies completely, but I also don't think it's unrealistic to donate 1% of your overall income to help the less fortunate. If you make $40,000 a year, how bad do you really need those four hundred dollars?

This thread has been bothering me for a while, partly because I wished that other people were more willing to help other people. But so many people seem to be caught up in this "earning" ideology---that they "earned" their money. I'm not arguing that people don't work for their money. But chances are that the only reason they are in a position to "earn" their income is because they were born into that position. Rags to riches stories are the exception, not the rule. America is not a meritocracy, and it makes no sense to think that the world at large is.

[Josh H]

Corvin,

Keep in mind I said people should donate and help others, but we should focus on helping others help themselves, not just pouring money at countries that gets spent poorly or stolen by the corrupt governments.

I don't think anyone has said we shouldn't help at all. Just that we don't have an obligation to donate most of our expendable income to charity and not buy any luxury items. I can't imagine you disagree with that give you donate only 5% of your income. I imagine have to be spending more than that on crap you don't need.

[dtcarson]

You insult me with your misconstrued spin on what I said. I'll decline to pursue it further.


Misconstrued? Only because I'm trying to make your arguments internally consistent. Bono having a Mercedes is a 'sin' [you used that word], but somehow your having thousands of hours of dvd's is not. Or it is, but hey, it's 'less' of a sin, I could only feed 10 starving people, Bono could feed 100, so I'm better than him.


Revealing of what? I've defended how art appreciation contributes to an individual's mental and emotional health; it has real merit unto itself. There is no other cheaper format whereby to enjoy films than DVDs, so what ugly truth have I revealed about myself. Again, I realize that money spent on DVDs could be put to better, less self-serving, use, but I've said many times that I am guilty along with those celebrities agaisnt whom I'm making accusations. THE ISSUE IS A MATTER OF DEGREE! If I let a child die by buying a DVD, Mr. Celebrity kills villages. Dear God, please won't you grasp that.


Again, "art"? "Elf" is "art"? Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, even Godfather, but Elf? As long as we're being judgemental as to how people spend their money [which you are], hold yourself to the same standards.


That's a lot of work for faulty math because it doesn't take into account the rewatchability factor (which, even being "unlimited", is limited by units allowed at any given single time for rent). Add to that the fact that I find Blockbuster to be perhaps the single most unethical business in America at this point, and I'll pass (though I realize you'll just change the business to Netflix or somesuch, but I have to argue 'em as you give 'em). Even if we take your mathmatical argument as accurate at face value, it still doesn't address the matter of degree I mentioned above.

Degree, is it? Perhaps Bono with his Mercedes and his mechanic and the miles he drives, gets a lot more value/efficacy out of the Merc than a Hyunday. Short term cost= higher, long term cost= lower. Is it better to buy 4 cheap cars to 'save the children' instead of 1 more expensive?
So at any given time you are watching more than 3 dvds?


I find that to be an especially weak argument. Just as I don't believe in the philosophy of holding people accountable for "the sins of their fathers", I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to be held accountable for how a person spends the revenue they take from that individual buying that person's wares. People are responsible for their own actions--if there's any great truth to life that has become obsured and ignored in the modern age, it is this.

However you find it, its true. If you help add to Bono's billions, and you think he's a greedy SOB who needs to donate more, then your own enjoyment is more important to you than the 'children.'


I say again and again and again that a) it is a matter of degree and b) everyone, middle class to celebrity, can and should understandably have a "line in the sand" where their charity must end, but you're trying to ignore that and posit the theory that, since charity vs. income/want vs. need can be deconstructed down to the nth of an nth degree, why even acknowledge or validate the issue at all, and I think that's faulty, even destructive, thinking. It boils down to "I can't fix the world, so why even bother?"

I'm just taking your own argument to its logical, but absurd, extremes. You seem to resent people of wealth because of the assumption they aren't donating 'enough' to charity, and they have more than they 'need' Whereas you are in the same situation. Most people in the civilized western world have more than they 'need', and that allows them to be more generous with their additional funding if they so desire, if they want to help, if they have the guilty conscience.



Interesting--you will not allow me to have my own feelings of conscience regarding the state of the world and my fellow Man's contributions or lack thereof to it?


"Lack" as determined by you, based on faulty and incomplete data. And again, it's hard to take the 'feelings of conscience' seriously from someone who has 750 dvds. No one "needs" 750 dvd's, all purchased brand new and unopened. And that was the beginning of the discussion, I believe, when you brought in 'need' relative to housing.


It is none of your business because I believe discussing one's own contributions to charity is crass and unsavory and self-aggrandizing.

Then how come you continue to do it? You keep defending your 'extra stuff' while denigrating others, implying your charitable donations are greater than [proportionally] theirs.

People are still free to judge me according to what I take from the world versus what I give to it, however.


Oh, don't worry, we are.


Sound like a man desperate to legitimize purchase of a $75,000 car. Why do you so desperately seek my approval of your lifestyle choices?

Um, I'm using a concrete example YOU brought up [Bono's hypothetical Mercedes]. I personally drive a BMW and an SUV, love them both, and don't really care what anyone thinks about them.

Talking about Bono and 'never wanting for anything'....Isn't Michael Jackson pretty much broke, even though he was found not guilty? Remember Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer, both of whom were relatively wealthy but now have nothing?

To Joe Akinkuoto on a ramshackle barn in Africa, where he works 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and started that at age 5, the difference between his situation and yours is quite equivalent to the difference between your situation and Bono's, if not even more egregious.

And Josh Hinkle is absolutely right:

"The biggest part of the problem is that the contributions are being stolen by the governments in these poor nations, or used poorly in general (i.e. not in ways to permanently improve the economies and infrastructures in these places.)."

We can give all the money we want to certain nations [yay Live 8, which raised NO money itself, but rather 'awareness'. I'm so proud of the talents and attendees, who really put themselves out in PLAYING MUSIC and LISTENING TO MUSIC 'for the poor'], but it doesn't matter if it's not used effectively/efficiently, and is merely embezzled, given to dictator's cronies, etc.
I do give to charity, but I want to make sure it's being used well. We got some flyer from a charity claiming we had pledged. I did some research on it, found out their CEO makes like 2.5 million a year, and 40% of their money goes back to 'fundraising', only 30% or so went to the actual cause. Please went right in the trash.

[Filmmaker]

I've addressed them repeatedly by saying I think people who are rich should donate, but are entitled to their luxury items and that we have no real obligation to help others to the extent you support.

No, that's the theme of your argument overall, but not a concise response to my individual counter-arguments. When I list 5 or 6 different points and you willfully ignore them all in favor of furthering a a tunnel-vision discussion of my DVD collection, then I can't help but assume you're more interested in fighting for the fight's sake then engaging in authentic discourse.

[grundle]

I'm just thinking of the starving children in Ethiopa lying in the dirt by the side of the road under the hot sun
Ethiopia actually has more fertile land per person than England. And Ethiopia used to be self sufficient in food production.

But then there was a Marxist revolution. The Marxists made it illegal to grow food for profit. So food production fell by 84%. That's why they are starving.

People in rich countries who buy giant manisons, luxury cars, and huge DVD collections are preventing people from starving, because by buying these things, they are providing employment to people.

The average Ethiopian earns about 50 cents a day. If Wal Mart opened up a factory there and offered to hire them for 10 times as much, and they could now afford to buy food, I wonder if the liberals would protest against what Wal Mart was doing.

And if Wal Mart opened up a giant supermarket to sell food to the Ethiopians, I wonder if the liberals would protest against that too.

Sometimes I wonder if liberals' hatred of the rich exceeds their compassion for the poor.

[Josh H]

No, that's the theme of your argument overall, but not a concise response to my individual counter-arguments. When I list 5 or 6 different points and you willfully ignore them all in favor of furthering a a tunnel-vision discussion of my DVD collection, then I can't help but assume you're more interested in fighting for the fight's sake then engaging in authentic discourse.

Not at all. Your other points are of no concern to me as we have a fundamental disagreement on the main, overarching point.

No point in debating finer details when we're miles apart on the general concept.

[dtcarson]

Ethiopia actually has more fertile land per person than England. And Ethiopia used to be self sufficient in food production.

But then there was a Marxist revolution. The Marxists made it illegal to grow food for profit. So food production fell by 84%. That's why they are starving.

People in rich countries who buy giant manisons, luxury cars, and huge DVD collections are preventing people from starving, because by buying these things, they are providing employment to people.

The average Ethiopian earns about 50 cents a day. If Wal Mart opened up a factory there and offered to hire them for 10 times as much, and they could now afford to buy food, I wonder if the liberals would protest against what Wal Mart was doing..

I think there was a discussion here somewhere about a Nike factory that opened in Vietnam. Quadrupled the net worth of the community, vastly reduced the hours worked by everyone, and vastly increased opportunities.

And if Wal Mart opened up a giant supermarket to sell food to the Ethiopians, I wonder if the liberals would protest against that too.

Sometimes I wonder if liberals' hatred of the rich exceeds their compassion for the poor.

And yes, Nike was slammed by the resident liberals for "only" quadrupling the quality of life in that community, while somehow trying to defend the previous state of affairs.
I don't wonder at all.

[DodgingCars]

Corvin,

Keep in mind I said people should donate and help others, but we should focus on helping others help themselves, not just pouring money at countries that gets spent poorly or stolen by the corrupt governments.

I don't think anyone has said we shouldn't help at all. Just that we don't have an obligation to donate most of our expendable income to charity and not buy any luxury items. I can't imagine you disagree with that give you donate only 5% of your income. I imagine have to be spending more than that on crap you don't need.

Exactly. I think middle class Americans should donate a portion of their money to the poor and needy!

[grundle]

Why would anyone feel that way? I'm not saying that I'm for or against such action (a salary cap), but the fact that 20% of the world lives on a dollar or less a day might be one reason.
Those people are making less than a dollar a day because there aren't enough rich people to offer them jobs. We need more rich people, more investment, and more capitalism.

[DodgingCars]

People in rich countries who buy giant manisons, luxury cars, and huge DVD collections are preventing people from starving, because by buying these things, they are providing employment to people.

That's actually an excellent point, that I'm upset *I* didn't think of. :) While I still think charitable donations are necessary -- You bring up a good point. If the wealthy (or even the non-wealthy) stopped buying luxury items (i.e. non-necessities), it would do far more harm to the world economy than they could make up in giving away their money.

[DodgingCars]

Those people are making less than a dollar a day because there aren't enough rich people to offer them jobs. We need more rich people, more investment, and more capitalism.

I don't know if it's "rich people" that are necessary, but I do believe capitalism in general can help. There are organizations out there that loan poor people (in 3rd world nations) money (micro-loans) in order to invest in their future:

I.e. these families will often buy a couple cows, and then pay back the loan when they start selling the extra milk they produce. Or chickens and eggs, etc.

[Filmmaker]

Misconstrued? Only because I'm trying to make your arguments internally consistent. Bono having a Mercedes is a 'sin' [you used that word], but somehow your having thousands of hours of dvd's is not. Or it is, but hey, it's 'less' of a sin, I could only feed 10 starving people, Bono could feed 100, so I'm better than him.

It means two things. a) the negative effects of Bono's (or any other celebrity's) actions are exponentially magnified over mine. Again, the wealthier you are, the greater your responsibility, which ties into the second point, b) the gap between my use of fun money and payment of required needs is infinitessimal to a celebrity's. I'm flummoxed this point is so hard to grasp. Villify me all you want for my DVD collection, but my fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point.

Again, "art"? "Elf" is "art"? Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, even Godfather, but Elf? As long as we're being judgemental as to how people spend their money [which you are], hold yourself to the same standards.

Again, this brand of arguing is snide, derisive and childish. I'm not participating at that level.

Degree, is it? Perhaps Bono with his Mercedes and his mechanic and the miles he drives, gets a lot more value/efficacy out of the Merc than a Hyunday. Short term cost= higher, long term cost= lower. Is it better to buy 4 cheap cars to 'save the children' instead of 1 more expensive?

Are you going to make the case that that Mercedes will outlast a, say, $15,000 Honda Civic to the tune of $60,000 worth of price differential? Are you? Really? Think hard...

So at any given time you are watching more than 3 dvds?

Again with this bone. I will no longer respond to points targetting my DVD collection to the willful exclusion of the counter points regarding it. My position against any argument using my DVD collection as its crutch is covered in full with my first paragraph in this post: "Villify me all you want for my DVD collection, but my fun money represetns a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point." I have nothing more to argue in that vein.

However you find it, its true. If you help add to Bono's billions, and you think he's a greedy SOB who needs to donate more, then your own enjoyment is more important to you than the 'children.'

This argument fails on two fronts. It presumes I'm an enabler, an off-shoot of paying for the "sins of the father"; I already clarified I do not believe such a philosophy. Secondly, it fails to recall that I identified Bono as, IMO, one, if not THE, single most important individual on Earth right now for making substantial, measurable, unprecedented improvements in the life of citizens of Third World countries. I do not villify Bono whatsoever; I just make the case that he drew his "line in the sand" tighter than I believe is warranted. As great as his contributions have been, he can and should do more. He's a saint and a hypocrite. He's better than me, and worse.

I'm just taking your own argument to its logical, but absurd, extremes. You seem to resent people of wealth because of the assumption they aren't donating 'enough' to charity, and they have more than they 'need' Whereas you are in the same situation. Most people in the civilized western world have more than they 'need', and that allows them to be more generous with their additional funding if they so desire, if they want to help, if they have the guilty conscience.

Once more, for the back row: "my fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point."

"Lack" as determined by you, based on faulty and incomplete data. And again, it's hard to take the 'feelings of conscience' seriously from someone who has 750 dvds. No one "needs" 750 dvd's, all purchased brand new and unopened. And that was the beginning of the discussion, I believe, when you brought in 'need' relative to housing.

As you continue to focus on the 1" crack in the mile-wide window, let me say again: "Villify me all you want for my DVD collection, but my fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point."

Then how come you continue to do it? You keep defending your 'extra stuff' while denigrating others, implying your charitable donations are greater than [proportionally] theirs.

I don't imply, I state outright. The evidence is obvious. Celebrities literally have no outstanding needs. They want for nothing. I, on the other hand, have needs that do not get met. "My fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point." Oh, and for your satisfaction, perhaps the sentence should have read: "I believe discussing one's own specific contributions to charity is crass and unsavory and self-aggrandizing."

Oh, don't worry, we are.

Does that keep you warm at night? What a delicious soul you are.

Um, I'm using a concrete example YOU brought up [Bono's hypothetical Mercedes]. I personally drive a BMW and an SUV, love them both, and don't really care what anyone thinks about them.

Hmm, considering this is your umpteenth post to a dissenter, I call "bullshit".

Talking about Bono and 'never wanting for anything'....Isn't Michael Jackson pretty much broke, even though he was found not guilty? Remember Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer, both of whom were relatively wealthy but now have nothing?

To Joe Akinkuoto on a ramshackle barn in Africa, where he works 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and started that at age 5, the difference between his situation and yours is quite equivalent to the difference between your situation and Bono's, if not even more egregious.

All due to the most egregious, repulsive misspending of the type I decry. What in the name of anything is your point here? You equate the condition of people who were born into poverty with those who owned a mint and blew it because they were utter fools???

And Josh Hinkle is absolutely right:

"The biggest part of the problem is that the contributions are being stolen by the governments in these poor nations, or used poorly in general (i.e. not in ways to permanently improve the economies and infrastructures in these places.)."

We can give all the money we want to certain nations [yay Live 8, which raised NO money itself, but rather 'awareness'. I'm so proud of the talents and attendees, who really put themselves out in PLAYING MUSIC and LISTENING TO MUSIC 'for the poor'], but it doesn't matter if it's not used effectively/efficiently, and is merely embezzled, given to dictator's cronies, etc.
I do give to charity, but I want to make sure it's being used well. We got some flyer from a charity claiming we had pledged. I did some research on it, found out their CEO makes like 2.5 million a year, and 40% of their money goes back to 'fundraising', only 30% or so went to the actual cause. Please went right in the trash.

Again, research the efforts of the one.org movement and quit arguing 1985 aid in the face of improved, intelligent, focused, "teach a man to fish", savvy 2005 aid.

[grundle]

Perhaps the children dying of AIDS in Africa are, and should be, more concerned with their dictators and corrupt politicians embezzling and wasting the money given to them--GIVEN to them--by governments and private charities. Which is an even more grotesque use of 'indiscriminate use of excess funds' than someone buying themselves a nice, albeit large, place to live.

The answer is more capitalism to create wealth, not more charity to move it around. [Charity is good, but eventually it can create a dependency, and doesn't 'solve' anything.]
Exactly!

Botswana is a country in Africa that has adopted policies of freedom, property rights, and capitalism. In the past 25 years, their per capita GNP has more than tripled. They are not starving. In 30 years from now, they should be a rich, first world country.

It's funny how the liberals in rich countries who pretend to care about the starving people in Africa never suggest that the other countries in Africa should copy Botswana's example.

[Josh H]

It means two things. a) the negative effects of Bono's (or any other celebrity's) actions are exponentially magnified over mine. Again, the wealthier you are, the greater your responsibility, which ties into the second point,


The problem I have with this, is while he's spending a greater portion of his expendable income on luxury items, I bet he is ALSO donating a significantly higher portion of his expendable income.

Thus he IS taking care of his greater responsibility.

[Josh H]

Again, research the efforts of the one.org movement and quit arguing 1985 aid in the face of improved, intelligent, focused, "teach a man to fish", savvy 2005 aid.

Today, in 2005, tons of aid money to Africa still gets stolen by corrupt goverment officials.

[dtcarson]

The problem I have with this, is while he's spending a greater portion of his expendable income on luxury items, I bet he is ALSO donating a significantly higher portion of his expendable income.

Thus he IS taking care of his greater responsibility.

But as we've seen, it's "not enough"
Filmmaker himself states that Bono is the most charitable person in the world. A saint, if i recall correctly. And yet, he's a hypocrite, because he DARES to drive a Mercedes.
I think I see the argument now:
"My DVD's and other extraneous spending suit a need for me, but everyone else, no matter how much they give, need to give more."

I don't think someone spending his own money on stuff for himself, ESPECIALLY when you yourself [not you, Josh, but FIlmmaker] stated he's a "saint' for his charitable deeds, is a 'negative effect'.

[Filmmaker]

Not at all. Your other points are of no concern to me as we have a fundamental disagreement on the main, overarching point.

No point in debating finer details when we're miles apart on the general concept.

Fair enough, but it leads to you beating the same drum beat over and over, like a mantra: "I earned my money and I can do with it what I please!" Great, thanks for your opinion, it's been noted on the board with the other 140+ people who agree with you, thanks for stopping by, see you in the next thread.

[Josh H]

Fair enough, but it leads to you beating the same drum beat over and over, like a mantra: "I earned my money and I can do with it what I please!" Great, thanks for your opinion, it's been noted on the board with the other 140+ people who agree with you, thanks for stopping by, see you in the next thread.

People keep posting the same shit in response to your posting of the same shit. You're just as much at fault for the repetitiveness as any of us.

[grundle]

He he... ;)

So, grundle, now that you have multiple feedback on the yes and the yes-nots, what's your take on the issue? What's the story behind your curiosity regarding this issue?
I voted "Yes."

I'm a Libertarian. (Regular posters in the politcal forum are well aware of this.)

J.K. Rowling deserves to be a billionaire because huge numbers of people chose to give money to her in exchange for the books that she wrote.

This is an excellent example of decentralized decision making. Her becoming a billionaire didn't happen because of any government decision. Instead, it happened as a result of the actions of millions of free people, each making decisions on their own, of their own free will.

I started this poll because I wanted to read the opinions of people who argued in favor of the "No" answer.

[Filmmaker]

That's actually an excellent point, that I'm upset *I* didn't think of. :) While I still think charitable donations are necessary -- You bring up a good point. If the wealthy (or even the non-wealthy) stopped buying luxury items (i.e. non-necessities), it would do far more harm to the world economy than they could make up in giving away their money.

Horseshit; as long as that money given away builds up the poor of the world, then the former-rich buy less, the former poor buy more, and the economy moves along without a hitch, only now, the quality of life playing field has been evened.

[grundle]

I think there was a discussion here somewhere about a Nike factory that opened in Vietnam. Quadrupled the net worth of the community, vastly reduced the hours worked by everyone, and vastly increased opportunities.

And yes, Nike was slammed by the resident liberals for "only" quadrupling the quality of life in that community, while somehow trying to defend the previous state of affairs.
I don't wonder at all.
I remember that thread!

But the guy who started it was crazy:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=426925&highlight=nike+vietnam

[Josh H]

Horseshit; as long as that money given away builds up the poor of the world, then the former-rich buy less, the former poor buy more, and the economy moves along without a hitch, only now, the quality of life playing field has been evened.

Do you have a degree in economics? Otherwise how to you know this is true?

I'm not saying it's not, as my Bachelor's is in Journalsim and my master's (and eventual Ph D) is in criminology. :D

But it seems sketchy given all the issues with money being poorly spent or stolen. I think it would work if used to promote capitalism and democracy. But if it's just used for welfare purposes, it will do nothing but save a few lives and leave the poverty intact.

[Filmmaker]

The problem I have with this, is while he's spending a greater portion of his expendable income on luxury items, I bet he is ALSO donating a significantly higher portion of his expendable income.

Thus he IS taking care of his greater responsibility.

This is absurd. If I have 5% expendable cash and I donate 2% of it how does that equate to a celebrity who has 85% expendable cash (and that's being generous) donating 10%, or 20$ or even (if we want to play in Fantasyland for a minute) 30%?

[grundle]

That's actually an excellent point, that I'm upset *I* didn't think of. :) While I still think charitable donations are necessary -- You bring up a good point. If the wealthy (or even the non-wealthy) stopped buying luxury items (i.e. non-necessities), it would do far more harm to the world economy than they could make up in giving away their money.
Thanks!

[Filmmaker]

Today, in 2005, tons of aid money to Africa still gets stolen by corrupt goverment officials.

Okay, if I say my preferred route of aid would follow the one.org model, will you get off it?

[Filmmaker]

But as we've seen, it's "not enough"
Filmmaker himself states that Bono is the most charitable person in the world. A saint, if i recall correctly. And yet, he's a hypocrite, because he DARES to drive a Mercedes.
I think I see the argument now:
"My DVD's and other extraneous spending suit a need for me, but everyone else, no matter how much they give, need to give more."

I don't think someone spending his own money on stuff for himself, ESPECIALLY when you yourself [not you, Josh, but FIlmmaker] stated he's a "saint' for his charitable deeds, is a 'negative effect'.

You're just completely unwilling (incapable?) of grasping the fun money vs. needs money point, huh?

[Filmmaker]

People keep posting the same shit in response to your posting of the same shit. You're just as much at fault for the repetitiveness as any of us.

No, I'm willing to argue finer points, to try to evolve the progress of the discussion; you, by your own admission on the other hand, said you wouldn't debate the finer points. So you have halted your end of the discussion with adherence to a static mantra.

[grundle]

I don't know if it's "rich people" that are necessary, but I do believe capitalism in general can help. There are organizations out there that loan poor people (in 3rd world nations) money (micro-loans) in order to invest in their future:

I.e. these families will often buy a couple cows, and then pay back the loan when they start selling the extra milk they produce. Or chickens and eggs, etc.
I know about those microloans. They are hugely successful, and the default rate approaches 0%.

[Filmmaker]

Do you have a degree in economics? Otherwise how to you know this is true?

I'm not saying it's not, as my Bachelor's is in Journalsim and my master's (and eventual Ph D) is in criminology. :D

But it seems sketchy given all the issues with money being poorly spent or stolen. I think it would work if used to promote capitalism and democracy. But if it's just used for welfare purposes, it will do nothing but save a few lives and leave the poverty intact.

I think the common ground we (may) have found here is that the two of us believe that ANY aid must be focused on teaching and enabling those in need to do for themselves, rather than just "giving them a fish". Cool--common ground; who'd a thunk it?

[Josh H]

This is absurd. If I have 5% expendable cash and I donate 2% of it how does that equate to a celebrity who has 85% expendable cash (and that's being generous) donating 10%, or 20$ or even (if we want to play in Fantasyland for a minute) 30%?

It's relative generosity. People make different amounts of money, the only fair comparison is to look at percentage of expendable income donated.

Sure the level of money dontated and spent on luxuries is vastly different, but that doesn't matter to me.

If a middle class person is donating 5% and Bono is donating say 15%, then he's doing his extra part IMO.

You're not going to agree b/c of you're belief that rich people should live like the middle class person and donate most of the income above what's needed to live at the middle class level. Or whatever level is acceptable lifestyle to you.

No point in arguing that as you're not going to change your mind, and nor am I or any one arguing on my side.

[Josh H]

You're just completely unwilling (incapable?) of grasping the fun money vs. needs money point, huh?

Pretty much everyone of us has expendable income.

Lets say spend 95% of my measlely expendable income as "fun money" and donate the rest.

Bono spends 75% of his gigantic, expendable in come as "fun money" and donates 25% of it.

Again, sure he has much, much more expendable income and should feel the need to donate more. And he does that by donating 20% more of his expendable income than me.

That's all he has to do to please me. He can spend the 75% on all the mercedes he wants. He did his good deed for the year with the 25% donation.

[grundle]

I identified Bono as, IMO, one, if not THE, single most important individual on Earth right now for making substantial, measurable, unprecedented improvements in the life of citizens of Third World countries.
What has he done for them?

[grundle]

The problem I have with this, is while he's spending a greater portion of his expendable income on luxury items, I bet he is ALSO donating a significantly higher portion of his expendable income.

Thus he IS taking care of his greater responsibility.
Bono does more good for the world by providing employment to people in the music industry than he will ever do with his charitable activities.

The redistribution of wealth is boring. The creation of wealth is much more interesting.

[Josh H]

What has he done for them?

Donated a good deal, got more donations, given a great deal of publicity to the problems they face.

All hugely important steps in getting the world involved in improving the situation. Now if they would start putting some thought into it instead of just throwing money at them.

[Josh H]

The redistribution of wealth is boring. The creation of wealth is much more interesting.

It takes wealth to create wealth. Unfortunately most charities keep just throwing money at Africa instead of investing it in ways to help africa create wealth.

[Corvin]

It's funny how the liberals in rich countries who pretend to care about the starving people in Africa never suggest that the other countries in Africa should copy Botswana's example.

:lol: This is just absurd. You've never heard liberals urge for mishandled African countries to follow good governmental examples??

[DodgingCars]

Do you have a degree in economics? Otherwise how to you know this is true?

I'm not saying it's not, as my Bachelor's is in Journalsim and my master's (and eventual Ph D) is in criminology. :D

But it seems sketchy given all the issues with money being poorly spent or stolen. I think it would work if used to promote capitalism and democracy. But if it's just used for welfare purposes, it will do nothing but save a few lives and leave the poverty intact.

Well there is an arguement that money in the hands of the poor and middle class actually fuels the economy better than in the hands of the rich. The arguement is that the poor and middleclass has more things to buy than the rich -- i.e. they have more needs. If you give someone with almost nothing, money, they are certain to spend most of it because they need so much, but if you gave the same money to the rich person, he may not spend it, because he already has so much --

and of course the counter argument is that the rich person may not spend it, but he might invest it -- and such investment (such as in a business) may create jobs, which in turn creates more money for the poor.

I don't really want to have that debate in a J.K. Rowling is too rich thread though. :)

[movielib]

...
I identified Bono as, IMO, one, if not THE, single most important individual on Earth right now for making substantial, measurable, unprecedented improvements in the life of citizens of Third World countries.
...
I think, without a doubt, that title belongs to Norman Borlaug.

http://www.reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

REASON * April 2000

Billions Served

Three decades after he launched the Green Revolution, agronomist Norman Borlaug is still fighting world hunger--and the doomsayers who say it's a lost cause.

Interviewed by Ronald Bailey

Who has saved more human lives than anyone else in history? Who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970? Who still teaches at Texas A&M at the age of 86? The answer is Norman Borlaug.

Who? Norman Borlaug, the father of the "Green Revolution," the dramatic improvement in agricultural productivity that swept the globe in the 1960s.

Borlaug grew up on a small farm in Iowa and graduated from the University of Minnesota, where he studied forestry and plant pathology, in the 1930s. In 1944, the Rockefeller Foundation invited him to work on a project to boost wheat production in Mexico. At the time Mexico was importing a good share of its grain. Borlaug and his staff in Mexico spent nearly 20 years breeding the high-yield dwarf wheat that sparked the Green Revolution, the transformation that forestalled the mass starvation predicted by neo-Malthusians.

In the late 1960s, most experts were speaking of imminent global famines in which billions would perish. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," biologist Paul Ehrlich famously wrote in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb. "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also said, "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." He insisted that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."

But Borlaug and his team were already engaged in the kind of crash program that Ehrlich declared wouldn't work. Their dwarf wheat varieties resisted a wide spectrum of plant pests and diseases and produced two to three times more grain than the traditional varieties. In 1965, they had begun a massive campaign to ship the miracle wheat to Pakistan and India and teach local farmers how to cultivate it properly. By 1968, when Ehrlich's book appeared, the U.S. Agency for International Development had already hailed Borlaug's achievement as a "Green Revolution."

In Pakistan, wheat yields rose from 4.6 million tons in 1965 to 8.4 million in 1970. In India, they rose from 12.3 million tons to 20 million. And the yields continue to increase. Last year, India harvested a record 73.5 million tons of wheat, up 11.5 percent from 1998. Since Ehrlich's dire predictions in 1968, India's population has more than doubled, its wheat production has more than tripled, and its economy has grown nine-fold. Soon after Borlaug's success with wheat, his colleagues at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research developed high-yield rice varieties that quickly spread the Green Revolution through most of Asia.

Contrary to Ehrlich's bold pronouncements, hundreds of millions didn't die in massive famines. India fed far more than 200 million more people, and it was close enough to self-sufficiency in food production by 1971 that Ehrlich discreetly omitted his prediction about that from later editions of The Population Bomb. The last four decades have seen a "progress explosion" that has handily outmatched any "population explosion."

Borlaug, who unfortunately is far less well-known than doom-sayer Ehrlich, is responsible for much of the progress humanity has made against hunger. Despite occasional local famines caused by armed conflicts or political mischief, food is more abundant and cheaper today than ever before in history, due in large part to the work of Borlaug and his colleagues.

More than 30 years ago, Borlaug wrote, "One of the greatest threats to mankind today is that the world may be choked by an explosively pervading but well camouflaged bureaucracy." As REASON's interview with him shows, he still believes that environmental activists and their allies in international agencies are a threat to progress on global food security. Barring such interference, he is confident that agricultural research, including biotechnology, will be able to boost crop production to meet the demand for food in a world of 8 billion or so, the projected population in 2025.

Meanwhile, media darlings like Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown keep up their drumbeat of doom. In 1981 Brown declared, "The period of global food security is over." In 1994, he wrote, "The world's farmers can no longer be counted on to feed the projected additions to our numbers." And as recently as 1997 he warned, "Food scarcity will be the defining issue of the new era now unfolding, much as ideological conflict was the defining issue of the historical era that recently ended."

Borlaug, by contrast, does not just wring his hands. He still works to get modern agricultural technology into the hands of hungry farmers in the developing world. Today, he is a consultant to the International Maize and Wheat Center in Mexico and president of the Sasakawa Africa Association, a private Japanese foundation working to spread the Green Revolution to sub-Saharan Africa.

REASON Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey met with Borlaug at Texas A&M, where he is Distinguished Professor in the Soil and Crop Sciences Department and still teaches classes on occasion. Despite his achievements, Borlaug is a modest man who works out of a small windowless office in the university's agricultural complex. A few weeks before the interview, Texas A&M honored Borlaug by naming its new agricultural biotechnology center after him. "We have to have this new technology if we are to meet the growing food needs for the next 25 years," Borlaug declared at the dedication ceremony. If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural biotech, he fears, they may finally bring on the famines they have been predicting for so long.

[Interview follows]

[DodgingCars]

I think, without a doubt, that title belongs to Norman Borlaug.

http://www.reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

Couldn't be. I heard his lives in a big house and drives a Benz.

[grundle]

Donated a good deal, got more donations, given a great deal of publicity to the problems they face.

All hugely important steps in getting the world involved in improving the situation. Now if they would start putting some thought into it instead of just throwing money at them.
Africa has already received huge amounts of aid over the years, and it hasn't done any good.

I have not heard Bono suggest that the poor starving African countries should adopt the successful policies of Botswana.

Botswana is a country in Africa that adoptd private property rights, free markets, and capitalism. In the past 25 years, their per capita GNP has more than tripled. There is no famine in Botswana. In 30 years from now, they should be a rich, first world country.

I have not heard Bono say suggest that the poor, starving African countries should adopt Botswana's successful policies.

Bono is interested in the redistribution of wealth, not the creation of wealth. He hasn't done anything for Africa. Instead, the only think he's done is to boost his own ego.

[grundle]

It takes wealth to create wealth. Unfortunately most charities keep just throwing money at Africa instead of investing it in ways to help africa create wealth.
Botswana is a country in Africa that receives plenty of private investment. That's because they have strong protections of property rights. If you invest your money or start a business in Botswana, you can be sure that the government won't seize it.

Most countries in Africa aren't like that. That's why they don't attract private investment.

I have never heard Bono suggest that the poor, starving countries in Africa should adopt Botswana's successful policies.

[grundle]

:lol: This is just absurd. You've never heard liberals urge for mishandled African countries to follow good governmental examples??
I've heard liberals suggest that other countries should adopt civil liberties.

But I've never heard liberals suggest that other countires should adopt strong protections of property rights.

[Mordred]

I think, without a doubt, that title belongs to Norman Borlaug.

http://www.reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml:up: And he's an Aggie too? Very cool :)

[benedict]

See?

This is why I started this thread in the political forum.

(It's OK that the moderator moved it. I'm just making an observation, that's all.)I've now moved it back. Trying to steer the debate towards a more literary course was impossible.

While accepting that it was not the original intent of the threadstarter, within the next 24 hours I'll prune and re-open the copy I've left in Book Talk for anyone that would like to talk books or authors.

[grundle]

I've now moved it back. Trying to steer the debate towards a more literary course was impossible.

While accepting that it was not the original intent of the threadstarter, within the next 24 hours I'll prune and re-open the copy I've left in Book Talk for anyone that would like to talk books or authors.
Thanks for moving it back.

[Filmmaker]

I have not heard Bono suggest that the poor starving African countries should adopt the successful policies of Botswana.

Botswana is a country in Africa that adoptd private property rights, free markets, and capitalism. In the past 25 years, their per capita GNP has more than tripled. There is no famine in Botswana. In 30 years from now, they should be a rich, first world country.

I have not heard Bono say suggest that the poor, starving African countries should adopt Botswana's successful policies.

Bono is interested in the redistribution of wealth, not the creation of wealth. He hasn't done anything for Africa. Instead, the only think he's done is to boost his own ego.

How sad; then you're obviously not looking in the most obvious places, such as the book BONO: IN CONVERSATION WITH MICHKA ASSAYAS (in which Bono's active push for free markets and strong capitalism in Africe and the Third World in general, as well as some surprising insights into how he feels liberals are doing their own part to harm, rather than help, the upward mobility of African nations, is made abundantly clear) or the business he created with his wife, Ali, called Edun, which is the first in a line of potential capitalist ventures meant to "provide sustainable employment and stable commercial relationships in developing areas of the world" (MSNBC.com, March 15, 2005). As his own wife says, "Bono’s biggest impression of the Africans is that they don’t want charity, they want trade,” Hewson said. “They have pride, they’re very dignified people. They want to work. This company is a business model that other people can follow" (MSNBC.com, March 15, 2005). You're obviously a very bright guy, and I've appreciated your contributions to this discussion, contrary to my own views as they so clearly are, but I daresay your latest observations betray far greater study of sources that support your own opinions than of those that run counter to it.

Oh, by the way, upon reconsideration, I would put Bill Gates at the top of the "Most Important Philanthropist" list, but Bono's nipping at his heels, and at least provides a louder voice to those in need, and is able to effectively direct media attention and, by extension, knowledge among the citizenry of richer nations to their plight better than anyone in the world right now.

[grundle]

How sad; then you're obviously not looking in the most obvious places, such as the book BONO: IN CONVERSATION WITH MICHKA ASSAYAS (in which Bono's active push for free markets and strong capitalism in Africe and the Third World in general, as well as some surprising insights into how he feels liberals are doing their own part to harm, rather than help, the upward mobility of African nations, is made abundantly clear) or the business he created with his wife, Ali, called Edun, which is the first in a line of potential capitalist ventures meant to "provide sustainable employment and stable commercial relationships in developing areas of the world" (MSNBC.com, March 15, 2005). As his own wife says, "Bono’s biggest impression of the Africans is that they don’t want charity, they want trade,” Hewson said. “They have pride, they’re very dignified people. They want to work. This company is a business model that other people can follow" (MSNBC.com, March 15, 2005). You're obviously a very bright guy, and I've appreciated your contributions to this discussion, contrary to my own views as they so clearly are, but I daresay your latest observations betray far greater study of sources that support your own opinions than of those that run counter to it.

Oh, by the way, upon reconsideration, I would put Bill Gates at the top of the "Most Important Philanthropist" list, but Bono's nipping at his heels, and at least provides a louder voice to those in need, and is able to effectively direct media attention and, by extension, knowledge among the citizenry of richer nations to their plight better than anyone in the world right now.
Thank you so much for giving me that correction that I needed so much!

I'm really glad you told me that.

I'm glad I was wrong about Bono.

I'm glad Bono is supporting those ideas and saying those things.

Thanks for explaining why I was wrong.

[DVD Polizei]

I am amazed at the popularity of her books. A friend I know and his GF purchased two books, so they could both read the new exciting masterpiece at the same time.

He's over 45-yrs old, and she's 39 or so. I personally don't get excited over the books. They are books. I have over 500 books, mostly non-fiction, and just can't seem to purchase one of her books even.

[Filmmaker]

Thank you so much for giving me that correction that I needed so much!

I'm really glad you told me that.

I'm glad I was wrong about Bono.

I'm glad Bono is supporting those ideas and saying those things.

Thanks for explaining why I was wrong.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm (you never can really know on the internet), you're welcome, and I really do recommend the aforementioned book, especially if you have interest in issues such as we've hashed out in this thread. In fact, if I have any criticism of the book, it was, "Well, this is all well and good, but aren't we gonna talk more about U2 and their music???"

[grundle]

Assuming this isn't sarcasm (you never can really know on the internet), you're welcome,
No sarcasm. I was serious. I appreciate accuracy.

[mosquitobite]

In 1944, the Rockefeller Foundation invited him to work on a project to boost wheat production in Mexico. At the time Mexico was importing a good share of its grain. Borlaug and his staff in Mexico spent nearly 20 years breeding the high-yield dwarf wheat that sparked the Green Revolution, the transformation that forestalled the mass starvation predicted by neo-Malthusians.

Another millionaire, bastard, monopoly tycoon. I read one time that Rockefeller wanted to end world hunger, but he did not want to do so based on "handouts" or simply feeding the hungry. He wanted to get to the root of the problem. So is this Borlaug that gets credit or Rockefeller?

And who says that the rich have to give their money to the GOVERNMENT to fix society's ills? :)

[grundle]

And who says that the rich have to give their money to the GOVERNMENT to fix society's ills? :)
The Democrats say it, that's who. Republicans prefer private charity:


http://www.philvalentine.com/RedStateGenerosity.htm

Red State Generosity

November 10, 2004

Don't look now but another Civil War is brewing. The nation just re-elected George W. Bush and it's not sitting well with portions of the country, namely the now-famous blue states. There are 19 of them, total. They make up primarily the Northeast, the Rust Belt in the Mid-West and the Left Coast. They boast some of the nation's largest population centers – New York, Chicago, Los Angeles. They don't think it's fair that someone from “fly-over country” is in charge so instead of doing the honorable thing and moving to France with Johnny Depp, they want to take their states and start a new country.

Where does all this talk come from?

It's coming from the very same people who have spewed the same old liberal rhetoric during recent elections in order to play on our innate sense of class envy. The ‘haves' are made to feel guilty by those purportedly speaking on behalf of the ‘have-nots.' We're taught, first, that we should feel guilty for any success we achieve and, second, that the liberal, compassionate thing to do is to give away that ill-gotten booty.

After George W. Bush won re-election (I love to keep repeating that ‘cause it burns those disgruntled liberals up), prominent Democrats advanced the possibility of secession. Democratic activist Bob Beckel told “Fox & Friends” the morning after the election, “I think now that slavery is taken care of, I'm for letting the South form its own nation.” MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell concurred. “The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government,” O'Donnell whined. In his effort to whip up discontent among the blue states using class warfare, O'Donnell forgot something. The facts.

<b>Indeed, the blue states pay roughly 20 percent more than the red states in federal income tax yet the blue states have an average of sixty-one percent more citizens on government welfare. The raw numbers paint an even uglier picture. Despite the fact that there are more people in the red states, the number of people on welfare in the Kerry states is almost three times the number in the Bush states.

The liberals will also have you believe they give more than conservatives to charity. Here are the facts. According to the Massachusetts-based Catalogue of Philanthropy's Generosity Index, millionaire-concentrated California is not the most charitable state. The most giving state in the union is – are you ready for this? – Mississippi. That's right, a red state. Their “Having Rank,” according to the index, is 50th out of the 50 states. Their “Giving Rank,” despite their relatively meager means, is 5th . That translates into a generosity index of first place. California, by contrast, is 6th in “Having Rank” and a dismal 17th in “Giving Rank” leaving them in 29th place. New York, by the way, is in 26th place.

Here's another interesting tidbit. Of the top 10 most giving states, every single one is a red state. Of the top 25 giving states, every one is a red state. All of the blue states rank 26 or below in generosity. So much for compassionate, giving liberals, eh? The bottom line is this; liberals are for higher taxes but when it comes to helping the less fortunate, without the threat of jail time, conservatives are the ones who step up to the plate.</b>

As for secession? I say let ‘em go. With so many people riding the wagon compared to those pulling, it won't be long before they tire of it. Then maybe they'll see red, too.

[DVD Polizei]

Republicans prefer private charity?




















rotfl

[Mordred]

I am amazed at the popularity of her books. A friend I know and his GF purchased two books, so they could both read the new exciting masterpiece at the same time.

He's over 45-yrs old, and she's 39 or so. I personally don't get excited over the books. They are books. I have over 500 books, mostly non-fiction, and just can't seem to purchase one of her books even.Go back to book talk you hippy! :)

[Breakfast with Girls]

The Democrats say it, that's who. Republicans prefer private charity:Please. They both want our money.