And if we redistributed wealth, how would it help the poorest nations?

[Georg R. Baumann]

Peanuts. <grins>

How about the Hull 6154 at estimated 280 Million USD expected to start cruising at 2010.

The world's most expensive privately-owned yacht is being built in Genoa, Italy. Known only as 'Hull 6154', the yacht measures 438ft, with seven decks, two helicopter pads and storage space for a submarine, and boasts a record-breaking price tag of £140 million. Its 60-strong crew will entertain guests in 15 state rooms fitted with the latest entertainment systems, gold and marble bathroom fittings and Jacuzzis. And if guests grow tired of the onboard delights, they can explore further afield using one of the yacht's five jet-skis or two speed boats.

The owner of the yacht, due for completion in 2010, is as yet unknown, but sources say that it is a Russian billionaire. However, Roman Abramovich, the Russian owner of Chelsea Football club who already has four yachts to his name, has been ruled out. Abramovich's yachts include the 335ft, £72 million Pelorus, and he recently announced that he was commissioning a fifth vessel called The Eclipse, priced at over £100 million. Currently under construction in Hamburg, it's security is said to include bullet-proof glass and a missile detection system.

However, something which would be much more my cup of tea than these ridiculous playboy liners for people who's first profession is being born rich, are the most extrem "Ocean Limo" designs <grins> and they go to Craig Loomes in my view.

http://www.cld.co.nz/earthrace.htm

http://www.cld.co.nz/tri_20m.htm

However, I must be mentally challenged, because when I read about yachts that cost 300 million USD etc., I can not help but think about the fact that the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.

Then again, I can not help but smile at the same time....

....it's security is said to include bullet-proof glass and a missile detection system.

So it's welcome to the petrol mafia and their toys.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Georg, that is "Said" but is it true? We don't even know who the richest people are? Is it the queen of England, Bill Gates, King Saud , I don't think we know! It might even be the Dupont family? Who says they even declare what they have? Even if you know, so what difference does it make as long as people have 10 children per family?

Anyway, the I'd vote for giving the poorest nations the money if they would adopt a 2 child per famly policy! Otherwise, they will be poor again in 40 years! The solution is not about money, it's about what constitutes a way of being human and not suffocating the planet!

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Georg, that is "Said" but is it true? We don't even know who the richest people are? Is it the queen of England, Bill Gates, King Saud , I don't think we know! It might even be the Dupont family? Who says they even declare what they have? Even if you know, so what difference does it make as long as people have 10 children per family?

Anyway, the I'd vote for giving the poorest nations the money if they would adopt a 2 child per famly policy! Otherwise, they will be poor again in 40 years! The solution is not about money, it's about what constitutes a way of being human and not suffocating the planet!

Asher

Sorry, I did not mean to spoil the thread, hence I also added Craig Loomes design.

However, 20 years ago, some 140 billionaires were looking for extreme toys. Just three years ago 476 and this year the list is a record 793. They’re worth a combined $2.6 trillion, their average net worth: $3.3 billion. The top 10 net worth gainers on the 2007 Billionaires list are worth $104 billion more than they were last year. The biggest gainer was Carlos Slim Helú, up $19 billion. In percent terms, Indian Anil Ambani made the largest leap; his fortune tripled.

Yeah, so let's tell the poor not to have children anymore and to stop suffocating the planet. <cynical grin>

Don't get me wrong, I am all for real education, so lets start with the vatican and start a mperformance art session, anyone with me? Let's pull a giant condome over St. Peters, anyone up for that photoshop challenge? <grins>

 

[Asher Kelman]

Georg,

You talk of Billions of 20 years ago! Now you say there are many more. Let me assure you young man, a billion dollars is not worth what it used to. That's why there is an anomolous increase in billionaires. Today, any rich shmo can become a billionaire! It's such a shame. I remember the time when being a billionaire meant something!

It's just like nostalgia, it's not like it was!

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Let me assure you young man, a billion dollars is not worth what it used to.

No need for a condecending tone Asher. I am 46 and I have been around the block a few times.
I am fully aware about the economical implications of the past 20 years and also of the ways the superrich made their money and secured their riches by means of tax evasion, and yes, I did my homeworks, I read Michael E. Porter and a lot of other related material http://www.isc.hbs.edu/, matter of fact I met him once on a conference, nice chap in deed!

Anyways, I leave it at that, again, I am sorry, I did not mean to spoil your thread. I am just not in light and easy mode these days, then again.... am I ever? <grins>.

So long
~^..^~
Bear

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

No it would not

Howeverm, I can not leave without one comment.

And if we redistributed wealth, how would it help the poorest nations?

Of course it would not help. The redistribution of wealth alone is a joke, we choked africa with our donation money in the past, and a lot of african intellectuals see it the same way and ask for us to stop sending them money. This is a complex issue and I am afraid this would fill pages of a thread for in detail explanations, but it is a fact that sending money makes the situation worse.

The flow of goods, the world trade is the problem.

 

[Ray West]

I am afraid this would fill pages of a thread for in detail explanations,

which would completely wander off topic, and everything would be just the same afterwards...

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070620.html
and others

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

which would completely wander off topic, and everything would be just the same afterwards...

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070620.html
and others

Best wishes,

Ray

LOL, thanks! I needed that....

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Georg, I think Ashers comment was entirely tounge in cheek mate.

 

[Asher Kelman]

At last Ben! Where were you all this time?

Georg, I think Ashers comment was entirely tounge in cheek mate.

Thanks so much! I missed that my humor was apparently not able to survive the Atlantic crossing!

I wrote as quoted here

Georg,

You talk of Billions of 20 years ago! Now you say there are many more. Let me assure you young man, a billion dollars is not worth what it used to. That's why there is an anomolous increase in billionaires. Today, any rich shmo can become a billionaire! It's such a shame. I remember the time when being a billionaire meant something!

It's just like nostalgia, it's not like it was!

Asher

Howeverm, I can not leave without one comment.

Of course it would not help. The redistribution of wealth alone is a joke, we choked africa with our donation money in the past, and a lot of african intellectuals see it the same way and ask for us to stop sending them money. This is a complex issue and I am afraid this would fill pages of a thread for in detail explanations, but it is a fact that sending money makes the situation worse.

The flow of goods, the world trade is the problem.

I probably share a lot of ideas with Georg.

One of them is that providing aid with no long term plan can be worse than indifference.

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Thanks Ben & Asher. No worries. <grins>

 

[Murray Foote]

That couldn't possibly be done in Photoshop, it just looks too real, so it must be a sign of things to come. Next we will probably see the Catholic Church giving away all its wealth to the poor....

 

[Asher Kelman]

That couldn't possibly be done in Photoshop, it just looks too real, so it must be a sign of things to come. Next we will probably see the Catholic Church giving away all its wealth to the poor....

Not a good idea. If there were no poor we'd lose our conscience!

Is suffering needed?

asher

 

[Barry Johnston]

Redistribution of wealth....

Firstly, this will never happen !! period.

Secondly, if it did, it would be a complete waste of time, because the money would squandered by unscrupulous organisations and governments, and would not get to where it was needed the most.

Thirdly, it wouldn't be teaching them to help themselves, which is the key; they need to be educated.

and last, I believe that charity starts at home.....

Barry.

 

[Murray Foote]

the money would squandered by unscrupulous organisations and governments, and would not get to where it was needed the most.

Isn't that what's already happening? Multinational companies and transfer pricing extract valuable commodities from third-world countries without paying them proper prices. Management of large corporations use their institutional power to strip disproportionate payments out of their companies for themselves and then hide it from taxation. Governments extract higher taxation from wage and salary earners because they are sitting targets. In Australia there is a continual scandal with Aboriginal welfare partlly because most of the spending always gets lost in the bureaucracy.

In Ireland in the 19th century the English controlled large estates and most of the land and exported food from there, even at the time of the Potato Famine. The English Government at that time considered providing famine relief to the Irish but they decided against it as morally inappropriate. They considered that the Irish needed to help themselves. The fact that they had been largely driven off the most productive land was not considered relevant.

I think that in the US and Australia we are undermining our future prosperity by allowing the development or more and more unequal societies (I'm not sure to what extent it applies to Northern Europe). If this continues, parental income will become more and more important as a predicator of opportunity while individual effort and potential ability will become less and less so - and I think that the prosperity of such countries will decline as a result.

Global ecological problems increasingly command our attention. I think that continuing international chasms in economic well-being will make solutions to these problems much more difficult to pursue.

So I think that "we" as individuals, as developed countries, have a responsibility to address national and international equity issues in our own interests and in the interests of others in the future. I don't think individual charity will make sufficient difference, especially to the extent that it is the product of an economic system that is itself the source of the problems. It has to involve concerted and coordinated efforts by national Governments and international organisations.

Regards,
Murray