But how much of the rest of the world can afford to give up a year of income? For the richest people in the world, that's a lot easier.

you can't force them though, right? you would want them to voluntarily give the money to you. good luck with that.

if you got 100 000 cakes that you must eat them all in 1 month and i take away from you 10 cakes or even 1000 did it really matter to you? if you got 2 cakes for a month and i take away 1 does this matter?

>> "Does 1 cake really matter"?

All of these "100 richest people" probably give away more than 100x what you earn in a year already. Are you honestly going to call them selfish?

If you are, then you are saying everyone should give away as much of their "cakes" as possible. Can you afford to give away an extra "cake"? Probably. Then you are selfish too, by your own logic.

and you know ALL the 100 people and they ALL give away so much? this is a fact for you? and you know that i don't give away my cake? this is a fact for you? what logic? you are just guessing...

A quote from Charlie Chaplin:" The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate... has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed."

In some traditions it isn't how much you give away but how much it costs you personally that counts.

>All of these "100 richest people" probably give away more than 100x what you earn in a year already. Are you honestly going to call them selfish?

Yes. Charity is a feel-good hypocrisy (or worse, just a tax saving measure).

Nobody made huge tons of money without other people's blood under it. And especially not the top 1%.

Even a record artist that makes money from his songs (so he doesn't hurt anyone personally) is taking advantage of a huge system of that makes possible the money his audience spends (e.g from the stealing of the native indian lands to the US invading other countries for cheap oil, to the domestic market taking advantage of sweatshop labour in third world --that the colonial powers have first razed--, etc).

>If you are, then you are saying everyone should give away as much of their "cakes" as possible. Can you afford to give away an extra "cake"? Probably. Then you are selfish too, by your own logic.

Maybe. But:

1) being selfish for your 1 extra cake and being selfish for 1,000,000 cakes is hugely different.

2) being selfish is a personal moral issue that is insignificant compared to the systemic problem of mass wealth accumulation.

"Nobody made huge tons of money without other people's blood under it. And especially not the top 1%."

Overly dramatic sensationalism - ripped straight from a first year college pamphlet on how to be angry at the man - at its best.

And all it warrants is a simple: prove it. Such an extraordinary claim, you should do it the justice of demonstrating it as fact.

>Overly dramatic sensationalism - ripped straight from a first year college pamphlet on how to be angry at the man - at its best.

No, actually pretty much pragmatic and casual. That's how the work works (at least as it is).

Unlike your ad-hominen attack, which was childish ("oh, a stereotypical fake college revolutionary", etc).

>And all it warrants is a simple: prove it. Such an extraordinary claim, you should do it the justice of demonstrating it as fact.

Nothing extraordinary about it.

And you even missed the example I gave. Here are a few other examples, barely scratching the most obvious facts:

(1) Large part of the Southern US GDP was for centuries based on slave labour. Today's fortunes, nicely paved streets, etc.

(2) The wealth of European societies has been subsidized from 1500 to 1950 from colonies and occupated land all over the third world.

(3) If you have a home anywhere in the US, is because some people back in the day took the land of previous inhabitants.

(4) Cheap oil in the West depends on military and political pressure (instead of open market exchange) from toppling Iran's elected government back in the day to invading Iraq et al.

So what? The annual income of the rest of the world is distributed among 7 billion people -- not 100 people.

So even if it could "end world poverty more than four times over" the amount per person gets negligible. You cannot get much from the already poor to give it to the already poor.

A better example would be the richest 10% of adults, which accounts for 85% of the world total assets (so the other 90% has just 1/5 what they have).

The thing is, just getting 1/4 of the property of the richest 100 persons could save hundreds of millions of lives and improve billions, while it would leave those 100 perfectly fine.

The reason we don't do it is because we value private property (especially of the rich) more than millions of human lives.

(We think nothing of overtaxing or working to the bone the poor on the other hand, or stealing their natural resources and land -- as centuries of colonialism has shown).