I wonder...

[2ndRateMind]

Ok, so how how would not being rich do anything for these needs?

Well, the notion is not that complicated. The idea is that one would never be able to become rich, because one would be giving money away to save lives.

Edited February 18, 2013 by ecoTramp

[nebula]

Ok, so how how would not being rich do anything for these needs?

Well, the notion is not that complicated. The idea is that one would never be able to become rich, because one would be giving money away to save lives.

I beg to differ, Eco. Have you actually explored the causes of the things you posted? Do you truly believe that throwing money at a "problem" is the fix-all solution?

Take Uganda and Sudan for example. Sure, one can invest in some organization that is over there getting their hands dirty, but will "giving money away" end the war that is leaving so many refugees? Will "giving money away" to ship food over there actually get that food distributed? (I've heard the stories from such things as Hands Across the World where the food was sent to the docks, but the crates of food were left there and rotted.) Will "giving money away" prevent warlords from intercepting and hoarding that money?

You see, it is easy for you to point fingers at someone else telling them what they need to do to solve the problems of the world. But what you need to do is look at yourself in the mirror and ask, "What can I do?" If you think giving money away is the solution, and if you just had more it would be fine, you will never accomplish much. The most effective solutions come from those who give themselves to the problem. If you seriously want to help those who go hungry, find someone or something that is doing something about it and then find a way to volunteer with them or something of the like. Find out why things are as they are, and seek means to fix the cause, not just fill one belly with one meal.

[2ndRateMind]

Of course you are right. One wants to be intelligent about how one spends one's money. Anyone would want the biggest bang from each buck. That's a no-brainer. And of course, the causes of absolute poverty are, in some cases, complex and intractable.

Nevertheless, it seems to me, that there are enough good people doing enough good work and crying out for resources to extend that work, that it is really quite easy to find a good home for any spare dollars left over after one has paid for the necessary expenses in life, and even enjoyed some of it's luxuries too. Provided the will is there, of course.

Now, I am not going to list my personal income and expenses, and nor am I going to justify myself by listing my commitments to charities. I don't see how to do that without boasting. However, you can be sure I am not simply whining from the sidelines. I think we largely agree on this; provided we both think the following:

1) that the complexities involved should not be an excuse to do nothing and

2) that the failures of some initiatives in the past should not be an excuse to do nothing.

Thereafter, it is simply a matter of establishing how much is enough to live on, and finding an effective way to distribute anything left over.

Best wishes, eco.

Edited February 18, 2013 by ecoTramp

[nebula]

Thereafter, it is simply a matter of establishing how much is enough to live on, and finding an effective way to distribute anything left over.

Actually, it isn't as easy as it sounds.

I boasted as you directly to the face of a young woman who happened to come from a wealthy family. She replied how her family does give plenty to charities, etc. What people like us don't understand is how wealth-generation and maintenance works. Bottom line is that "money" has to keep flowing into investments - either electronic or "stuff" - or it becomes lost.

It isn't as easy as it sounds to pour the money-flow into this church, that ministry, this charity, etc. on a continual basis. That's why people and corporations have a a certain number of such that they sponsor and pour tons into these.

And if you don't know how complicated investment-wealth-generation is, you should research it.

[2ndRateMind]

This argument, that capital needs to accumulate for investment purposes, has always struck me as a rather convenient one for people with accumulated wealth. The fact is, capital accumulates anyway, without needing any help from consumers. Banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and governments and the like are quite capable of funding requirements from the economy for capital.

[nebula]

This argument, that capital needs to accumulate for investment purposes, has always struck me as a rather convenient one for people with accumulated wealth. The fact is, capital accumulates anyway, without needing any help from consumers. Banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and governments and the like are quite capable of funding requirements from the economy for capital.

Have you studied economics? Derivatives? The whole mess is not as simple as you make it sound.

Look at how much Oprah Windfrey gives out, for example, yet she still possesses how much? Would you write to her telling her that she isn't as much of a humanitarian as she says she is because she is still filthy rich and lives large?

[JTC]

Look at how much Oprah Windfrey gives out, for example, yet she still possesses how much? Would you write to her telling her that she isn't as much of a humanitarian as she says she is because she is still filthy rich and lives large?

I have no idea about Oprah, but if you're right Neb, then Oprah must be counting on something other than what Jesus said about how hard it is for a rich person to enter Heaven. But now I'm sinning. I'm not supposed to concern myself with what anyone else does.

But you 2 are having an interesting discussion here. And since right now the lack of money is my biggest problem, I couldn't resist saying something. But I also have my big sins.

[Guest]

²³ And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴ Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” ²⁵ When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” ²⁶ And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Matthew 19:23-26

The Church

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Revelation 3:17-22

[2ndRateMind]

Well, Neb, as it happens I have studied some economics. But really, I see this as a moral issue, rather than a technical one, so I am not quite sure what part derivatives have to play in the calculus. As for Oprah, well, what about Oprah? I thought - correct me if I'm wrong - that the Christian ideal was to emulate Christ, not Oprah. That is why I am so confused about how Christians can be rich when their fellow humans (who they allegedly love) are in such desperate states of want. There must be some knock-down, justifying rationale, or it wouldn't be so common. But I'm blowed if I can figure out what it is.

[nebula]

Well, Neb, as it happens I have studied some economics. But really, I see this as a moral issue, rather than a technical one, so I am not quite sure what part derivatives have to play in the calculus. As for Oprah, well, what about Oprah? I thought - correct me if I'm wrong - that the Christian ideal was to emulate Christ, not Oprah. That is why I am so confused about how Christians can be rich when their fellow humans (who they allegedly love) are in such desperate states of want. There must be some knock-down, justifying rationale, or it wouldn't be so common. But I'm blowed if I can figure out what it is.

Actually, I was referring to financial derivatives, not calculus derivatives.

My point, though, is about judging and pointing fingers. Firstly, I never said anything about emulating Oprah; I was asking you if you point this finger of judgment at her like you do rich Christians?

What I was trying to explain to you is that wealth generating does not come from salaries and profits but other financial means, and this whole system works different that mere passing bucks around.

And to put things into perspective, "the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants." (Source) So, Mr. Rich American yourself, are you hoarding any money in the name of "savings" to pay for unexpected expenses like car repairs? Do you take the money you could spend on a camping trip and give it to the poor rather than going on said camping trip? Do you sacrifice a night out with friends so that you could use that money you would have spent with them to give it to the poor? Do you live in a cheaper place than you can afford so that you can give the excess of your income to the poor? Do you plan on buying or did you buy your fiancee a costume jewelry ring as an engagement ring in order to give the money you would have bought for a real jewelry ring to have more money to give to the poor?

And about love . . . Paul speaks of "giving all you have to the poor" but lacking love. He condemns such action. (1 Cor. 13).