Have Bono, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, "Dr." Jeffrey Sachs and all those morons who think they can end world poverty donate their entire net worths directly to those third-world nations.
I say let these celebs live on like, $35K a year, that's all you need, right?
Think they'll do it? They don't already, so I know they're full of IT!
2006-06-13 07:53:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Community Service
i totally agree with you. they use there celebrity status to bring awareness but still flounder money on $15mil houses and multiple cars. they do give but not as much as they can
2006-06-14 01:55:08 · answer #1 · answered by Michellee 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, Bradgelina did just that, in fact, with the funds from the baby photos. Millions for poverty! That was a great idea that will possibly catch on with other celebs.... I think the question truly lies in why we, as a society, overpay movie and t.v. stars, athletes, etc., (while they spend thousands of dollars on a single dress for a red carpet event, drag their dogs around in thousand dollar bags, and appear on Cribs showing off their multi-million dollar houses wearing gold teeth.) Why do we pay firefighters and teachers so little, and reward those in show business so much? It's pretty sick if you think about it. How can we change the status quo? Stop buying and renting movies? Stop attending ballgames? Stop buying magazines that profit from photos of the stars in their glory? What do you think?
2006-06-13 22:52:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll grant you it looks hypocritical for someone wealthy to say "we have to do something about poverty," but if the spirit is willing...
It's not just a matter of money. We threw money at Zaire's problems for years, while it was sucked up by the dictator. Now guess what we have to enjoy? HIV and Ebola.
Sachs and economists like him argue for structural shifts to mitigate crushing poverty.
Jolie and Bono are along for the celebrity status - it's a good use of that intangible asset, don't you think?
2006-06-13 16:50:43 · answer #3 · answered by Veritatum17 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not enough money to end world poverty. If your qualified, the red cross will not turn you away because of a lack of money. They could drop off a few tons of rice but that'll be gone fairly soon. Establishing infrastructure and a sustainable economy requires many teachers and engineers who get more money and better living conditions where they are. The idea is to teach them to fish not just continually drop off food. There are limits to charity, some people have given millions of dollars and truly do care.
2006-06-13 15:04:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know man, i think they can raise more money for charity doing what they are doing. in order for people to pay attention to them, they have to go to all the clubs, wear the fanciest clothes, look as beautiful as they can, and have the biggest most expensive houses. i know that Gandhi didn't do or have any of these things, but he was from a culture that respected renouncers, and he was protesting, not trying to raise money.
2006-06-13 15:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by Ganesa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no clue what you are talking about? Why would somebody shell out their hard earned money?
The simplest way to end poverty: Work hard and earn money!
2006-06-13 14:59:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That still wouldn't be enough money. Poverty is a world problem.
2006-06-13 14:56:34 · answer #7 · answered by mattd550 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice try, yer wasting time. They worked harda and they are who they are...keep brainstorming....come up with something serious and I'll help. I'm famous.
2006-06-13 16:03:57 · answer #8 · answered by soulsearcher 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How did you figure that out. You are one smart guy. No kidding .
2006-06-13 14:56:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋