How much money is obscene
Discussion
I just saw a video of a customised private Airbus A380 ($400,000,000)
Roman Abramovich has a $1,200,000,000 yacht
Masonry now have a new veyron supersports because presumably spending a mere $2,000,000 on a car would get you laughed at unless you give a shed load of cash to get it pimped.
These aren't assets that will Rise in value because the A380 and the boat will have been showing their age before they've even finished them and the only thing the bugatti has to recommend it is that it is the most expensive car available.
For the price of these toys the amount of good that could be done is astronomical. The boat for a start could buy enough mosquito nets that every family in Africa, that's the entire population of a continent would be protected from malaria. It represents 40 times the amount that was spent on combating the disease globally in 2000.
there are countries you could transform by spending 400 million and become a saint.
How is the sheer extravagance justifiable and at what point does spending move from having fun with your cash into something morally indefensible?
Roman Abramovich has a $1,200,000,000 yacht
Masonry now have a new veyron supersports because presumably spending a mere $2,000,000 on a car would get you laughed at unless you give a shed load of cash to get it pimped.
These aren't assets that will Rise in value because the A380 and the boat will have been showing their age before they've even finished them and the only thing the bugatti has to recommend it is that it is the most expensive car available.
For the price of these toys the amount of good that could be done is astronomical. The boat for a start could buy enough mosquito nets that every family in Africa, that's the entire population of a continent would be protected from malaria. It represents 40 times the amount that was spent on combating the disease globally in 2000.
there are countries you could transform by spending 400 million and become a saint.
How is the sheer extravagance justifiable and at what point does spending move from having fun with your cash into something morally indefensible?
ctallchris said:
How is the sheer extravagance justifiable and at what point does spending move from having fun with your cash into something morally indefensible?
If it is your money then I don't see how anyone has the right to tell you what you can and can not spend it on, therefore I don't see a morally indefensible point.What is morally indefensible is when Govt Departments pour away billions of tax money.
Jasandjules said:
ctallchris said:
How is the sheer extravagance justifiable and at what point does spending move from having fun with your cash into something morally indefensible?
If it is your money then I don't see how anyone has the right to tell you what you can and can not spend it on, therefore I don't see a morally indefensible point.What is morally indefensible is when Govt Departments pour away billions of tax money.
In my view it's all relative. I'm currently working in India and the money I have is as obscene to the family I pass on the way to the office that live by the sewer under a piece of plastic sheet as the money being spent above on a toy plane and toy boat is to us. How many maleria nets have I bought lately, probably the same amount as you have.
At least Gates, Buffet etc are doing a lot of good with their money. They are proving to be great custodians of their wealth.
At least Gates, Buffet etc are doing a lot of good with their money. They are proving to be great custodians of their wealth.
ctallchris said:
No one can tell you what to spend it on but if i was spending 1.2 billion on "toys" I would find it difficult to manage without thinking about how much of a positive impact that money could have on the world as a whole.
It would have very little effect on the world as a whole.I agree that its all relative; to some I would appear well off, abundant in my money and trappings, yet to others I would be a mere peasant in comparison.
Taking the OP's subject as a whole, I don't think its that easy to lay down the opening gambit that x costs this but look what we could do with that money if someone didn't spend on x but instead considered y.
So for example you take the "Veyron" money and plot it into building wells and supplying mosy nets and basic antibiotics - you will only supply a tenth of the population. Now what? The inbalance between rich and poor has always existed, its just now (largely due to media) more obvious.
However getting the "rich" to give up some stuff and furnish the struggling countries would not work, the scale is immense, the harsh reality of life is that you cannot always make things good, you cannot always save those souls, no matter how much money you throw at the situation. If it was as easy as that then to be honest it probably would have happened. The reality is that tens of millions get poured into the struggling areas of our globe and it has very little actual effect.
Taking the OP's subject as a whole, I don't think its that easy to lay down the opening gambit that x costs this but look what we could do with that money if someone didn't spend on x but instead considered y.
So for example you take the "Veyron" money and plot it into building wells and supplying mosy nets and basic antibiotics - you will only supply a tenth of the population. Now what? The inbalance between rich and poor has always existed, its just now (largely due to media) more obvious.
However getting the "rich" to give up some stuff and furnish the struggling countries would not work, the scale is immense, the harsh reality of life is that you cannot always make things good, you cannot always save those souls, no matter how much money you throw at the situation. If it was as easy as that then to be honest it probably would have happened. The reality is that tens of millions get poured into the struggling areas of our globe and it has very little actual effect.
Edited by Romanymagic on Tuesday 10th August 22:24
No amount of money is obscene ("foul, repulsive, detestable"); that's just a stupid concept. The word is more normally appropriate in sexual contexts.
If you must use it in reference to money, then waste can be obscene ("detestable"), and waste of tax-payers money is far worse than someone wasting their own ("stupidity").
If you must use it in reference to money, then waste can be obscene ("detestable"), and waste of tax-payers money is far worse than someone wasting their own ("stupidity").
Cotty said:
ctallchris said:
No one can tell you what to spend it on but if i was spending 1.2 billion on "toys" I would find it difficult to manage without thinking about how much of a positive impact that money could have on the world as a whole.
It would have very little effect on the world as a whole.
Isn't it obvious that we should encourage these billionaires to spend their limitless funds in this way?
£1.2 Billion spent on building a yacht is better for us proles than the same amount on a balance sheet.
Yard managers, mechanics, architects, crew, engine and electronic suppliers, designers, fabric suppliers and even brokers, lawyers and fixers will be benefiting from this purchase. This money gets spent in the real world.
These sort of purchases fuel technical advances too, with many British companies in the fore.
On a personal level I wish these people didn't have the money, but why not have some of their spend directed on a commercial bais in this way?
ETA PW beat me to it
£1.2 Billion spent on building a yacht is better for us proles than the same amount on a balance sheet.
Yard managers, mechanics, architects, crew, engine and electronic suppliers, designers, fabric suppliers and even brokers, lawyers and fixers will be benefiting from this purchase. This money gets spent in the real world.
These sort of purchases fuel technical advances too, with many British companies in the fore.
On a personal level I wish these people didn't have the money, but why not have some of their spend directed on a commercial bais in this way?
ETA PW beat me to it
Edited by maturin23 on Tuesday 10th August 22:41
The ability for an individual to create wealth for themselves has allowed philanthropy to deliver social benefits to a level beyond that which any government could achieve and should be embraced.
That is why the west, on the whole, is able to look after people who need it far better than say, former communist countries where the ability to accumulate wealth did not exist.
There is today, a difference in that to solve most of the world’s problems does not require money but policy, attitudes and actions. The wealthy philanthropists of today are better placed to benefit society not by giving loads of cash but by using the power that wealth gives them to pressure governments to bring about the change needed to help their people.
It’s the old adage of give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Give him a rod and teach him to fish however……..
That is why the west, on the whole, is able to look after people who need it far better than say, former communist countries where the ability to accumulate wealth did not exist.
There is today, a difference in that to solve most of the world’s problems does not require money but policy, attitudes and actions. The wealthy philanthropists of today are better placed to benefit society not by giving loads of cash but by using the power that wealth gives them to pressure governments to bring about the change needed to help their people.
It’s the old adage of give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Give him a rod and teach him to fish however……..
PW said:
ctallchris said:
The boat for a start could buy enough mosquito nets that every family in Africa, that's the entire population of a continent would be protected from malaria.
Or it could be used to employ hundreds of designers, engineers, welders, joiners, electricians, plumbers, etc at a shipyard for 4 years, and contribute to the salaries of suppliers of fixtures, fittings, furniture, electronics, machinery and technical equipment that get the massive contracts as a result...That money doesn't just evaporate, it trickles back into the economy.
It might not be as charitable as buying mosquito nets, or donating towards a cure for cancer, but it isn't the height of evil to be spending that much money either.
Edited by PW on Tuesday 10th August 22:25
Finally someone who understands that spent money doesn't just vanish! 
Beardy10 said:
Jasandjules said:
Fittster said:
Depends on how the money is acquired.
Yes ok, crime lords excepted....Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff