1 Million Seconds

[Charlotte W]

Did you know that 1 million seconds is equivalent to 12 days? 1 billion seconds is equivalent to 32 YEARS. Now replace seconds with pounds and you may have some idea of just how much 1 billion pounds is. Am I the only person who thinks that for one person to have this much money is just ridiculous? Can one person spend that much money in a single lifetime? Is it not obscene that there are multi-billionaires anywhere on this planet who just want to earn more and more money for themselves? If you have this much money and you are not using it to further the progress or well-being of the human race why on earth do you need it? Even if the interest alone was used to benefit others it would make a huge difference to many lives.

For these reasons I think multi-millionaires and billionaires who hoard their wealth are not to be admired but should actually be despised.

If you are wondering why you have worked your socks off this year and yet your bank account has little or nothing to show for it because it has gone on nothing but food, rent or a mortgage, fuel bills, council tax, VAT, transport costs and any other essentials you may need; or if you are wondering why you are out of work, can only find part-time work or temporary work then you really ought to read two books. They both, in their different ways explain why at least half the population of this country are finding 2012 a very difficult year financially and why things are unlikely to get any better in 2013.

The books are Chavs - The Demonization of The Working Class by Owen Jones and Whoops! - Why Everyone Owes Everyone And No One Can Pay by John Lanchester. They are both excellent reads even if you don?t agree with the authors? views.

[KidKruger]

So Charlotte, given the option of a billion pounds YES or NO, you'd say NO - right ?

Most people with a billion have earned it I'd wager. Good luck to them.

Why look at extremes anyway, all of us (just by living in the West) are guilty of obscene waste, consumerism and materialism - therefore having more than we NEED. Pointing at someone because they have more than you doesn't get you off the hook I'm afraid.

It's a bit like the cat calling the dog 'hairy arse'.

[Loz]

Charlotte W Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For these reasons I think multi-millionaires and

> billionaires who hoard their wealth are not to be

> admired but should actually be despised.

And do you know how much those multi-millionaires and billionaires care what you think?? Well, if you were to stack one billion pennies up high and then, with a very sharp knife, nick a tiny, weeny piece of metal off the highest penny.

In the greater scheme of things, that much.

People get that much money generally because they are very clever and work their socks off. OK, some inherit, some get lucky. But frankly, I don't begrudge the Bransons/Zuckerburgs/Gates/Jobs or whatever of this world one penny of what they have.

It has been said that if you were to distribute all the money/assets evenly to every person in the world, within 10 years it would be redistributed roughly as it is today. I can believe that.

[Hipe]

I may not be off the hook because God wants me that way and not to end up in a place where I will never get out

[Hipe]

This is not the way to treat people SIR dear SIR when you wanna help do you know what this is call

[Hipe]

Millions with many I have to stress before I give it to them do you know would happen to you if this was the case

how many out there support all this shit.

Why the big issue are on the newspapers out now who did it and Why do you know Why and who did it Who !!!!!!

[KidKruger]

speed bomb ?

[Hipe]

It wasw a rich Man or perhaps a Wealthy Woman WHO can someone tell me is this OK can more people go out there and complain or to report this shit

[Hipe]

More people more shits who are they are you confident or Yes in the past not now !!!!!!<<<<<<<

[KidKruger]

oh, crack.

[woodrot]

aaaaaarg..MY EYES......!!!eleven1111

eta - where has hipe gone ?

[Twoddle]

The theory is that in a capitalist society the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. The poor live from paycheck to paycheck buying "stuff". The rich spend their money only in ways that make them more money which anyone is allowed to try and do, hence you end up with a few billionaires.

[Jeremy]

I have absolutely no problem with billionaires as long as they pay their tax.

[Chillaxed]

Well said.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So Charlotte, given the option of a billion pounds

> YES or NO, you'd say NO - right ?

>

> Most people with a billion have earned it I'd

> wager. Good luck to them.

>

> Why look at extremes anyway, all of us (just by

> living in the West) are guilty of obscene waste,

> consumerism and materialism - therefore having

> more than we NEED. Pointing at someone because

> they have more than you doesn't get you off the

> hook I'm afraid.

> It's a bit like the cat calling the dog 'hairy

> arse'.

[silverfox]

Where did I put that kidney bean?

[Charlotte W]

KIDKRUGER

Extremes are what cause dysfunction. People eat too much and this country now has an apparent obesity problem. People and governments spend more money than they have and end up with debt they cannot afford to repay. People depending too much on state aid and taxes have to go up. Banks not lending to businesses and economic growth slows down to a standstill. Too few houses mean that house prices in certain areas are sky high. People drink too much alcohol and end up with a drink problem. Why shouldn't I use extremes? Moderation rarely causes problems. I may be wrong but most people don't want to be billionaires neither do they want to be poor to me that's moderation.

I'm just as selfish, greedy and hypocritical as the next person. As I have absolutely no financial nous I would ask Warren Buffet about the best way to invest 1 billion and use the interest generated to set up a charitable foundation to provide nurseries, primary and secondary schools with facilities on a par with the best in the private sector in a deprived area of the UK for the benefit of the children of cleaners, refuse collectors, care workers, labourers, other low paid workers and the long-term unemployed because I believe that every child, not just my children or the children of my family members or my friends or work colleagues, should have access to a first rate education. Funds would be made available for those who want a higher education. Graduates who want to enter those professions where unpaid work experience is a necessity would get financial assistance to cover their living costs.

I would also set up small scale businesses that would be self-sufficient and help provide another stream of income and provide jobs and training for students and those that may not wish to attend university.

I would provide funds for established charities, such as Kids Company, with a proven track record in helping disadvantaged children.

I would also set up a separate body to provide proper scientific research into complementary therapies and alternative medicines. I am aware that some people, usually those who have never tried them think that they are nothing but placebos but there have never been any large scale scientific studies. I cannot for the life of me understand why placebos are so maligned. If it is possible to stimulate the mind to fix the body why not do it? Good heavens - people can't be allowed to treat themselves. What would happen to all those pharmaceutical companies?

How do you know I live in the West? I could live in Brazil for all you know. That's the beauty of the internet. I disagree with your statement that that just living in the west means that......... That's like saying everyone who lives in Britain supports the present government. Can you explain what hook I am supposed to be trying to dodge? And if I don't live in the West am I hook free?

LOZ

If you believed what we were told some years ago that the introduction of technology would leave people with lots more leisure time, then why are people still banging on about trying to balance work and family life? If you believed Tony Blair we bombed Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You are free to believe whatever you want. Just because something has been said doesn?t make it true. People generally believe what they want to believe ? usually what is in their own self-interest or what reflects their own perception of the world and billionaires are no different and neither am I.

As far as I'm aware drug cartel leaders and mafia heads are also usually highly intelligent. They also work hard at what they do and are super rich even if their riches are obtained by illegal means.

By the way, just how much would each person get if the entire world's wealth was distributed equally?

TWOODLE

A theory is just that a theory. Theory and reality are often two entirely different things. There was once a theory that the world was flat. Today we are told the world is round. I'm not sure I believe that either simply because I cannot verify it for myself as foolish as that may sound.

JEREMY

The world?s 3rd richest man, Warren Buffet has said on many occasions that the super-rich should pay more tax. Last year he pointed out that that last year his tax bill came to 17.4 per cent of his taxable income, "a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 per cent to 41 per cent and averaged 36 per cent." He has also said that his secretary pays a higher tax percentage than he does.

He also said ?If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multi-billionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.?

He has also said that he intends to give 99% of his fortune away. Not all billionaires are selfish and greedy; Bill Gates has also decided to use his fortune for the good of humanity.

In my opinion there are far too many entirely greedy and selfish super rich people who don?t want to pay any tax yet some companies they own pay so little to some categories of workers that these workers after putting in long hours every week are unable to earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves and their families without state aid. Surely that can?t be right?

Capitalism is what people make it. If you just want to make money for the sake of making money, I really don?t see the point. Balzac was wrongly quoted as saying "behind every great fortune is a crime". I think the real crime is that individuals or small groups of people can hoard money and use it for their own selfish ends and just as you are all entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine.

[David A]

Charlotte,

You cite Owen Jones in your original post.

Here's all you need to know about 'The Justin Bieber of The Left'.

Even Alistair Campbell can't save him.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Paragraphs with spaces are your friend CW.

[Goling]

:) :( Behind you

[Voyageur]

Charlotte W Wrote:

You are free to believe

> whatever you want. Just because something has been

> said doesn?t make it true.

Very true CW, and something to take to heart yourself.

[Huguenot]

CHARLOTTE W

You are a mess of anxieties looking for an opinion. You need to stop, take a breath, and try and find a cohesive world view. I can't even begin to deconstruct the massively conflicting statements you've made regarding your world policies.

However, you might want to start with the assumption that most people actually agree with your ambition, it's just that there are limitations on the funds available (which results in 'policy decisions') and there are limitations on resources (which results in 'wars').

If you can accept the premise that everybody wants the same thing that you want, but they'd like to do it in an organised step by step fashion with respect to available budgets, then you'll be 90% of the way to happiness.

[KoolBananas]

I beg to differ, charlotte you're totally out there

[Loz]

By the way, just how much would each person get if the entire world's wealth was distributed equally?

An interesting question, though very difficult to answer. A little Googling suggests it is around US$30K, but how do you define 'wealth', much less decide on how you divide it. For instance, if there is a house in ED currently worth ?500K, would this still have the same worth after the Great Divide? (since no one would have ?500K any more).

A slightly easier question to answer is how much would each person in the world get each year if world GDP was paid out equally in salary to everyone? According to Wiki, "in 2011, the GWP (Gross World Product) totalled approximately US$79.39 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), while the per capita GWP was approximately US$11,900."

BUT! If this socialist ideal was realised, would world GDP drop like the proverbial lead balloon? Why would anyone work their little socks off for 18 hours a day creating a business if they just got paid the same amount as each and every one of their employees? Who wants to spend 7 years studying to be a doctor when their receptionist gets the same dosh?

And if all houses were the same price (or allocated by some central authority), who gets to live in Mayfair and who gets to live in Croydon?

It's very hard to take a capitalist concept like money and apply into another situation where it would essentially be worthless.

[Charlotte W]

DAVID A

I haven't had time to look at your web post but I don't really need to. Justin Bieber is a very young, very successful singer who is very rich. I would have thought his was just the type of success that a capitalist would admire. Owen Jones is a young, successful writer who has written a successful and much praised book(that according to Wikipedia ?was widely discussed in the British press, as well as several international publications such as The Economist and The New York Times Chavs was long-listed for the Guardian First Book Award. It was listed by The Sunday Times and The Bookseller as the best-selling politics book of 2011. The New York Times picked Chavs as one of its top 10 non-fiction books of 2011?. It tries to explain how the working class has come to be vilified by certain sections of society. In the book he has not advocated the downfall of capitalism or the imposition of socialism. In fact the weakest part of the book is that he has provided no real solutions. What books have you written?

LOZ

I thought ?money/assets? your words, were wealth which is why I used the word in my response to your original post. If we can send men to the moon, put up satellites to spy on people and build the internet, I don't think it is beyond our ability to find a way to divide up the world's wealth. Unlike you I don't believe that if the world's wealth was distributed equally things would be in 10 years? time roughly the same as they are now. The reason is that many people who suddenly come into a fortune one of the first things they do is buy a home. They may then proceed to buy a car, go on holiday or go travelling, pay for a higher education etc. If everyone received ?30,000 that would give most people the opportunity to buy their own home and what is wrong with that? While ?30,000 may be a considerable sum it is not going to last a lifetime so people would still have to work.

As far as I?m aware money is not the sole factor people take into consideration when choosing a livelihood and rarely is. There are a whole host of them. If money really was the main one few people would choose to study to be a medical doctor as there are far easier ways to earn money.

In any case I never said that I wanted the world's wealth to be evenly distributed you were the one who brought it up and simply responded.

HUGUENOT

I don?t understand your first sentence. The patronising tone of the rest of the paragraph and indeed the rest of your reply is reminiscent of David Cameron?s jibe ?Calm down dear?. I might have taken your comments more seriously if you had actually given me at least one example of my conflicting statements.

You may think that I have contradicted myself because you have not read properly what I have written and simply seen what you want to see. I have only attempted to dig a bit deeper into the throwaway statements and unsubstantiated witticisms made by KidKruger, Loz, Twoodle and Jeremy who belittle me because they think that I am anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. How is that trying to form international policy?

It is clear from your statements that you think I should shut up and leave things to the "experts." The same experts I expect that got us into the financial mess in the first place. You are obviously far more intelligent and highbrow than I am so I don't doubt that your faith in them is well founded.

I am unashamedly a financial novice but John Lanchester has done a brilliant job at demystifying the world of high finance and explaining how the credit crunch was allowed to occur. I find his approach a million times more helpful than your condescending comment about leaving such matters to the experts. I do not like to make assumptions because I have learnt from experience that I nearly always get them wrong. Far be it from me to assume that everyone wants what I want because you clearly don't. Happiness has got absolutely nothing to do with it.

VOYAGEUR

I most certainly do and if I have given the impression anywhere that I don't then that is a complete error on my part. I am only too aware that I am not infallible and if people pull me up in a constructive way when I make a genuine mistake then that's fine by me. I'm no expert on anything and I freely admit it.

[Huguenot]

Well Charlotte W, I barely need to go beyond your first couple of sentences before you present two highly conflicting complaints that 'people and government are borrowing too much' but 'banks aren't lending enough'.

Well which way do you want it? More debt or less debt?

I'm going to go with your first statement, and assume that you don't want people borrowing too much - but then you ask Warren Buffet what the best way is to invest ?1bn is (which means lending it to someone else and therefore creating debt).

You then want to spend the interest - which is the money people have to pay you to be in your debt, so it simply makes debt worse.

The rest of your list is exactly what the government is trying to do, they just don't have enough money. So the interest you make on your ?1bn is not going to come close to the ?700bn they are already spending every year on what you regard to be simply not enough.

The only way they could spend more is by... BORROWING it!

So yes, at the root of all your philosophy is a compete confusion between disapproving of debt and borrowing to excess, and a desire to make more people suffer more debt and spend money they don't have to do more things they can't afford.