Why is it socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs?

Question

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Kent Keller, 49, Milwaukee, USA. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/5915.page

Answer 1

Fear of becoming what they fear. Greed. Lack of sympathy and empathy.

The only reason it's "socially acceptable" is because people turn a blind eye to it. What can others do about it anyhow?

Those who have the most are often the cheapest of all when it comes to personal sacrifice. If they donate anything, it's because they will get a tax receipt or publicity, etc, not because it's out of the goodness of their hearts.

What is disgusting is that we glorify that lifestyle and strive to achieve it, whereas we should be doing all we can to help those with less and it's as simply as trying to end the misery that exists in this world.

There is so much corruption in other governments where they take all the money we send to help the poor anyhow, but there is the saying that "Charity starts at home".

When we live in a world of movie stars and Hollywood hype and yet pass by a homeless person without a second thought, there is something majorly wrong.

I supposed there are those who say why bother if the person doesn't want to help themselves. Well that is true too, many mooch off the system too, but we have to try and do something, and I believe it has to start with the children so they don't turn out to be that type of adult who has lost all hope because society didn't care.

Answer 2

Whose business is it how someone uses THEIR OWN money? Once you start going down that road, a number of questions come to mind...such as where is the line as to when you have TOO much and should start spreading it around to others? Or how much is enough to give to someone else? What constitutes hoarding, anyway? Is it putting it in a bank somewhere or rolling it back into your business which probably means hiring more people to work which means you are making their lives better? And if you are saving...at least some of your "hoarded" wealth does that mean you are planning on giving it to your kids,wife, maybe a CHARITY when you die? Is that a bad thing?

And I challenge the premise anyway that we do not give to those in need. America contributes millions of dollars in aid every year. A big part of the problem is the system for getting aid to those who need it...not that there isn't money. Why don't you ask a question on how to fix THAT problem?

Answer 3

Communism would be a better way to live. Socialized systems would okay. Right, the seem to have tried them and they do not work.

Most that have a lot do not hoard their money Hording money does not earn money.

It is the very wealthy that create jobs for the poor. Virgin industries employ many that would not have jobs if A very clever man had ideas that helped us all.

Microsoft that gets a lot of bashing provides jobs for thousands of people. Again because a man had ideas that people would pay for and want.

It is the wealthy that contribute to charities to help all of us have a better life.

If the money was distributed to all so that all could have enough to live quality lives there would be no real progress so we would most likely end very similar as the USSR did.

Those that have the ideas and knowledge should Reap the benefits. Most of these people are also those that create the wealth for many others.

History shows that this so called uneven distribution of wealth has always been with us. It is not anything new. In fact wealth is better distributed now than ever in the past.

Answer 4

There are many reasons, I'm listing a few off the top of my head...

1 The A-Dream
Some people aspire to that type of wealth hoarding, dream about it, so even if their chances of attaining are extremely slim, they find nothing wrong with the hoarding of wealth. This is one of the most powerful ways of controlling the populace, make them dream about joining the club.

2 Apathy
Some people just cannot be bothered about such issues, and focus on having their own needs and wants met.

3 Lack of information / Media Manipulation
Just look at the media, say watch 4-5 hours of TV. What do you see more, reports on people starving, or advertisements tempting you to part with your money, to hoard more to be able to afford more?

4 Belief in the system
Some people simply believe it is right to hoard wealth if you have it. It is a cultural thing. The same cultural thing encourages or discourages social safety nets. For example a Swedish CEO could get less than 10 times the salary of an average worker, one in the US could get a hundred times more. It is how people were brought up, what they believe, in equality and society, or in individuality.

5 Discouraged
Some people just think that ther eis nothing that can change the system. Especially after the fall of the Eastern Block, there are virtually no well publicised alternatives to pure capitalism. Therefore, rather than chasing windmills, people try to do their small bit, individually.

If we want to change it, a good idea would be to use the internet, make people conscious by publishing facts, such as the disparities in pay, or how much a certain corporation spent to send its executives on a trip and how many starving people could have been saved from death... Sensationalism yes, but it's also making things very obvious, fighting off items 2, 3 and 5 above, and also hopefully lead people to question 1 and 4.

Answer 5

That is North America as an example the chance to be rich. Personally I am not even close but I would not mind if I were so blessed, what I would do!
You can have billions, spend it all on some worthy cause and change nothing. You would also be broke on top of all that. If you give over time it makes more of a difference for longer a time. A gift that keeps on giving. If one is fortunate to be wealthy then one should be obligated to help as we the less financially well off do. It should never be about how much one has helping has benefits for all. Having more just means the ability to give more. If I had cash it would go to my family first ,all who inherit it would be required to do good things. No one should feel bad or be made to feel that regardless of what they do or don't have. That would be a judgment. It is wonderful to want equality but that would only happen in some dreamy Utopian world, not our world. If you have it then share it ! I am right here I can assist you by taking some, it will go to good use.
Waste not, want not O_-
Would we be so bold to call it hoarding if it were our wealth?

Answer 6

I am not an expert on politics or anything, but from some of my business classes I gather that the reason why it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs is because of the economic and political structure of the United States. We live in a free enterprise system where money is earned. It is theorized (but may not be true) that money is the reward for hard work (or as today, brain power). The idea goes: If I have a lot of money, I probably worked hard for it; therefore, it is justified. Now, I may want to be a good person and give some to charity and to help the poor, but ultimately that's my decision; I shouldn't get condemn if I chose not to. To be short, it is socially acceptable because it is not against the law.

Answer 7

You cannot exactly say it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many people go without basic need! This needs to be looked at from differernt perspectives, first from the perspective of the rich, they see their wealth as a reward for all their years of hardwork and don't mind if it continues to pile up Some even come from poor backgrounds and they know how it feels to be poor so understandably never want to go through that experience again.
Secondly in countries like the U.k for example they engage a system of progressive taxation (the more you earn, the more you pay in taxes) and also other measure to reduce this gap in wealth between the so called rich and poor. Also certain people for example Richard Branson and Also Bill Gates have also donated a lot of money to alleviate poverty in certain countries of the world escpeccially Africa and there are certainly lots more who have also done this.
From the perspective of the "Poor", they see rich people most of the time as hoarding wealth which is also true escpeccially in my experience in places like Africa where Leaders and Executives control millions of dollars and other valuable currency in the aim to become extremely wealthy, also some rich people also don't care about the plight of the poor because they see them as layabouts and people who did not do anything with their lives when they should have, which is definately not true for the Majority.
In conclusion, i'll say its not socially acceptable to hoard wealth but what some people fail to understand is that wealth sometimes is not hoarded. In economics it is seen that the more wealth a person has, the more Income the person gets as wealth brings in the flow of income hence a further increase in the person's wealth.

Answer 8

It has been this way since at least the beginning of recorded history. This reality also occurs all around us, in the natural physical world. It appears that this is part and parcel of 'survival of the fittest', in this reality. . .Fear of not having enuf shall always motivate the 'haves' to remain in this enviable position; wishing it were not so is a waste of life energy . . .

the only answer to this dilemma?

Socialistic society - where all 'earn' the same 'wage', for whatever work they 'do', contributing to the whole.

For example . . . the hotel room cleaner pays the doctor exactly what is earned - the cleaner earns five dollars per hour, sees the Dr for 12 minutes, pays one dollar for the visit. . . see why 'equality' is impossible????

And thus, hoarding wealth is acceptable (to those who have it) and abhorrent (to those who don't) - and follows the dual concept of this physical plane - opposites are necessary to maintain 'balance'.

Answer 9

If you earn wealth and "hoard" it as you say (although people rarely hoard what they earned), that is their right don't you think ? Now, having said that...look at what Bill Gates and his wife, Warren Buffett and others are doing with their wealth. They want to help others so they may have a better life. This is good.
I myself don't hoard my wealth...it is called "savings", but I do what I can to help the less fortunate. For example, I give generously to St. Joseph Indian School.
Just remember this, money is not the long term answer to the problems of the ones who go without basic needs.

Answer 10

People buy into our culture because the large corporations paint a face of innocence and goodness, creating a sense of affinity and familiarity with their clients. People can not dislike the good, the giving, and the familiar, and sensing this they consider nothing wrong with the money hoarders. In actual fact, The large corporations only care about the money while most of the population only gets enough money to acquire shelter, food, and a few pleasantries, so they feel that they have very little charity to provide. After all, what is one donation going to do when they don't see that the entire nation is rising up to fight the problem? The average person doesn't truly feel he can make a large difference alone if the problem isn't already fixed. How do they know the entire nation isn't rising up to fix the problem? Well the problem hasn't been fixed yet, so that is the only answer that comes to their mind. And it's true. I sure believe it, and you sure believe it. "What can one donation do to change the state of things if there are only a few to donate?" he thinks to himself.

Most of the population is in a foggy state of mind, more concerned with making it through the day and focusing on the now, forgetting the big picture. I heard a gross statistic like 3% of the people control 80% of the wealth. This is the state of the world, and the foolish and average act blindly, following their senses and emotions to that tasty Big Mac waiting for them at the drive through while the money hoarders continue to increase their wealth. As a race, we're hypocritical when it comes to going against our desires and basic instincts. We are inherently selfish.

The corporations who have most of the money continue to grind out money from the population, creating more wealth for themselves, while the people continue to accept this as a fact of life, buying their products and moving on with their daily life. We all want to change, and I truly believe that people have a decent heart, but with the way the world is, it makes it very hard for us to escape this cycle. Reguardless of the struggle it would take, there are ways to overcome our follies and rise up to a better world without resorting to a suppressing political state like communism, but that is another topic.

Answer 11

What distorted logic led Kent to conclude that people having wealth correlates to other people being poor? News flash... if all the "hoarded wealth" was dispersed among the poor, the vast majority would be poor again inside of five years.

Most people in this world without "basic needs" live in places that are lacking in basic NATURAL RESOURCES. We can't plant money in a desert and grow crops, or drill wells with money when there is no water. What are we supposed to do, spend trillions of dollars to relocate every poverty stricken person to other parts of the world?

People in the U.S. (and other developed countries) without "basic needs" are either lazy, stupid, or mentally ill. Anyone can get a job flipping burgers or sweeping floors.