Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: In the western world it is acceptable to hoard wealth, because it’s like a role playing game. We always want our level, and the more wealth we have the more status in the society we have. I think it’s been like that for millions of years, so it’s just that we have the possibility to do it and then it’s acceptable in this big civilization or role play game that we can reach the next level in our role play game and then pretend that we have some more possibilities because we have reached the next level, and then we actually don’t give a shit about who are not going, those who cannot make it, those who are not in a role playing game, those, we don’t give a shit about those who are just trying to survive and in that way trying to gain a level or just staying in the same level all the time, low level all the time. But, like in role playing games, we have guilds, we have clans, we have alliances, and I think maybe it’s, we should be able to play other people, serve other people, and when I say play, in a role play, role play game term then it’s like helping someone else, some [newby] to rise a level. I think we should do that.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: I don't know, maybe it's socially acceptable in a few places but around the world it's not socially acceptable. And, so, I think the question's more like, "Why's it socially acceptable in the wealthiest country in the world?" And it's something that's happened over a very short period of time. I can almost remember when Reagan was elected that all of a sudden, it totally shifted, people were allowed to flaunt their wealth. We watched in 20 years the utter -- that it's almost not just socially acceptable but what people are looking for. And I think that that's because people are afraid, they're distanced from their value, they're distanced from worth, that the culture has become so empty that everybody wants to have money, so it will somehow that will help their suffering or their pain or their lack of connection to anything valuable. And so we even look at why do people vote against their self interest. It's that they project themselves in the place that somehow money is freedom. And instead of the understanding what real freedom is or the understanding of what happens when you have money and how it can happy your freedom. So I think that in the United States, the reason it's allowed and that's only in some circles I would say that you have to be affluent to think that it's allowed. In many neighborhoods around the United States I know that it's not socially acceptable, it's actually appalling, especially for those people who live in the effects of it. But, globally, if you think of how may people are -- live on $2.00 a day, for them it's not socially acceptable, it's behavior. And, what we need to do is continue to create an uncomfortable situation for those people who are hoarding their money. I think one of the interesting things that's happened are rich people giving large amounts of their fortunes away and hopefully that will continue [audio cut off].

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

John Gage: Hoarding wealth, keeping more and more and more is primate behavior. It’s the fear that something that you have been able to gain, some advantage that you have might be taken away from you and your family. So, hoarding is a natural phenomenon, preparation by those that have memory of history for the bad times in the good years, put away, so that in the bad years you shall have. But, the hoarding, which is possible today with the financial fluidity, with the ability of wealth to move in these abstract terms from bank instruments, dollars, flowing into marks, flowing into euros, flowing into yen, flowing into this enormous increase in financial fluidity has enabled those that move rapidly, those that have tools, those that have resources to accumulate vast amounts of wealth without any particular attention to the rest of the world, to thinking about how everyone else, without tools, without access, without capabilities to amplify their human labor, without an ability to amplify the crop or flock or herd productivity, how they have no resources to use to leverage, to build, to grow. So, socially acceptability only goes so far. It is socially unacceptable today for these vast accumulations. But, then, if that’s true, how do we alter this behavior? The answer lies in transparency, in seeing where the wealth is. Those that are very rich go to great lengths to hide it. Those subject to taxation go to great lengths to avoid it. Those that attempt to say their moral right of accumulation entitles them to wealth far beyond that of everybody else in the world must change their ideas, must at the base realize that at some point, enough is enough, and you must at that point stop.

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: People don't realize that their brothers and sisters in the human family are living in unacceptably poor conditions, that they could have a positive effect in changing. When people feel the intimacy of other lives, then they step forward to express their caring, to express their love. These are natural human dynamics. And ah, it's the denial, the intellectual, emotional denial, of this interconnectedness. The great master said, "Love God with all your soul and all your heart and all your might, and like unto that love your neighbor as yourself." Well neighborhood now has become a moral location. It's not just a physical location. And then of course in Mathew twenty-five he describes how people will be judged. And he says "I was naked, did you clothe me. I was hungry, did you feed me. What you do to the least amongst you, you're doing to the presence of the divine amongst men. Now that's the premise of the Christian religion. I think that Christians understand and value this but they don't see that connectedness, they don't feel that intimacy with the poor. In Islam, taking care of the poor and the orphan and the disenfranchised is - it was the highest, one of the highest values of the prophet Mohamed. Charity toward the poor - which is not just charity but it's truly giving of oneself, is a fundamental requirement to being a full human being. Judaism has the same, if you read the Old Testament prophets, this sense of accountability to the poor, let justice flow down from the mountains like a river, the prophets said. And that justice is to care for the poor as your own family. Why is it acceptable? It's not acceptable. It's not acceptable.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: What is an animal? What is society? What is hierarchy? What is wealth? What is accumulation? What is structure? What is a basic need? What is satisfaction? Who wants to answer all this? Who is going to show it? Who is going to catalogue it? Why are such questions asked? They don't mean anything. They are only there to give our conditions an image. Societies accumulate themselves like colonies of ants. Creating their accommodation and their clothing. Is clothing a need? Or is it the radical dealing with others? Is the open game the most radical or is it the colosseum? Is the basic need water, ore or cereal? Is wealth sleep, dictatorship, god, gold or mania? Is tolerance the animal inside of us or is it the plant or the heart or the blood or the milk we drink? What do we tolerate when we sleep? The dream, which incorporate in us? Do we sleep too long to be tolerant? Or is society too tired to recognize the wealth in others? The radical wealth. This question is like a hurricane. These questions are like storms. Only in the eye of the storm is art. On the borders is the storm and you have to go through this storm to recognize the revolution, which takes place on us but only from the outside. You are never able to get inside because then you are just an instrument. Revolution is like a secret skin. The basic need is clothing which nobody can wear. It is too heavy. Wealth is accumulating itself, like El Dorado or Atlantis. Some things go down, others don't.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: I don't think it is considered socially acceptable to hoard wealth. I think the word hoard is by definition something negative. We don't believe that it is a good thing. What it is, is that it is a big part of the human beings just trying to pursue their own wealth. Now, I think the question is what is socially acceptable is abundance and I think that may be what you are talking about. This idea that a life lived successful is blessed with material success. And in a way, we have to figure out how to be able to accept that. I mean I have friends who are extremely rich, they've made good choices in their life, I don't judge their wealth and many of these people who are wealthy are extraordinarily generous and dedicate a lot of their time and resources and energy to helping others because they can. And I don't judge them for that; I don't necessarily do or could have done -- would even necessarily like to do the things that they have done. But, the result of what they've done has resulted in -- the result of what they've done is the accumulation of wealth. The result of what I have done is the accumulation of knowledge. Is knowledge wealth? Not in material grounds, so what I had to do is to live a life much more reduced in terms of my ability to consume, which comes very naturally to me and relieves a lot of the pressures that I think I would have if I work constantly pursuing financial wealth. That said, I have gotten children and they live in New York City and I can assure you, it's not an inexpensive livelihood to do, so I have had to figure out a way to consume according to the needs created by the conditions I have created in my life, the responsibilities by the choices I made. I think and I try not to judge what other people do, but maybe it's just as I said it. That said, in my 50, I need to figure out how to take better care of that aspect of my life.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto: I think that to hoard wealth isn’t an end in itself. Wealth should be searched for together with the responsability that comes from it. The people which are socially in the position to yield wealth, the countries which are in the position to yield wealth should feel obligated, and many do so, to help the poorest. And since there is no contradiction between hoarding wealth and a social orientation, let’s say that socially the hoarding of wealth, which in these cases has a negative connotation, should not just be based on the negative. It shouldn’t be hoarded, the wealth should be yielded an distributed, and therefore should exist mechanisms that favour that distribution, and there should exist as well a consciousness, in my opinion, of who yields that wealth in the most developed countries, of the persons of major economic power, of the responsibility implied by that, and that wealth shouldn’t just be hoarded but should be distributed and should be put into the service of humanity on the whole.

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: I think that the love of the money and the wealth is a human instinct. And the rich person can be recognized from his appearance which makes him more respected by the others. I wish it would not influence... that ones wealth was not an acceptable phenomena by the people, but that is reality because the human instinct affects us. Everybody loves the money and the wealth. And an Arabic saying states "if you have a pound, you are worth a pound, if you have more, you will be more valuable". So, in many societies the value of the human being is unfortunately evaluated by the wealth and not by his principles, morality, knowledge or ones humanity, but we can take advantage of our aggregation here to change this idea and to erase this love from human instinct. Thanks.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: It’s basically the perception that people who have wealth they don’t see like that. They think that they deserve it, they think that they have earned the money, they think that they have got the money from their ancestors, they think that they are born in those families and those societies and countries which are rich in comparison to others. So, they don’t look at it. So, that is the question of perception first of all. And, the second is the social apathy towards the poor people or unconcern towards the poor people. So, people look for their own selfish interest. The people who are well-off, they look for betterment for themselves and they keep on growing more and more wealth for themselves instead of looking at those who are haves not, who are not able to feed for themselves, who are not able to survive properly. So, that is the big reason. So, when you talk of social acceptance of such thing, it is normally due to the apathy, unconcern and the perception. There are few people who still believe that it is unjust that some people have more money and some or not, some are not able to feed even. In that case, one must know that you should have courage to speak, you should have courage to oppose it, to make the world better and just. But, normally, the people don’t have that courage. They are frustrated because they believe in that idealism, they are frustrated because they are not able to do anything. But, one person can make a difference if comes with a strong voice and oppose this injustice so that you can challenge that so-called social acceptability.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: Let’s see, so no, does it? Do you think so? Of course it doesn’t depend on, is it a direct consequence of our wealth that other people are poor? In some questions it is; in other questions it’s not. During the colonizations of other parts of the world, yes it was a direct consequence. Now the world is very, very, very different. Now it is not a consequence; it is a problem of distribution. It’s a problem of planning. I think what could we do? What you’re aiming at is of course that some parts of the world are starving; other parts of the world are not starving but live in excess with everything they have around them, so what you’re aiming at is of course this question. So what should we do about it? In fact, should we look into the whole system of distribution and planning? Should we also look into the system of the western world throwing money and lots, lots, lots of money, into what was earlier the state referred to as undeveloped countries? If we look into all these systems and the responsibility of looking into this system would be the global society, so what is the global society? It’s first of all the government. It’s the overall governmental institution like the UN and then it’s the people. So, in fact, it’s not a part of it. We can easily, easily having the whole world being not poor like UN is aiming at in the Millennium Development Goal. So it could easily be solved. Who should solve it? The international society which is basically people. So everyone should take care to take part of this. For instance, I come from the science community and we know that scientists around the world are working also on this goal to find out how could we do this differently.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: The hoarding of wealth is a basic need of human beings, which is connected to their will to survive. But the fact that we all have to die but never know when, should make us consider why it should be important to accumulate wealth if there is an unjust distribution of ownership in the world. If the satisfaction of basic human needs is possible financially, the governments or the organizations in the world should take care that these needs are satisfied.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: In order to answer this question, we have to go right back to where we started. Hypocrisy, human greed, one sect of humanity deeming itself more important than another makes it possible to reduce the lives of others to nothingness in order for yourself to be something. It depends on the negation of society in itself and probes up the self, the one, solo, the ego, the capital. It’s socially acceptable to that sect of humanity. It’s not socially acceptable to all of us. In the United States, the Western world has let itself believe that for you to be human you need to dehumanize. That for you to be on the positive side of things, you need to embrace everything that is negative. It would never be acceptable for one person to grow fat on the dehumanization and the sucking out of another. But, this world has convinced itself that that is indeed exactly what it means to do. Writers set out to promote values of death, make death music, write death goods, watch death TV programs. We embrace materialism. We let children believe that driving around an expensive German limousines and living in splendor high up where you can indeed be able to look at the rest crawling at your feet down there. That is the thing indeed to go out in search of and so because these people make the rules, then they can dictate and determine how others live.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: The ideal way of course is to be able to distribute wealth more equally. So naturally, there is a question “Why is it socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic need?” But when we look at this question, we should think maybe, on one hand, while it is necessary to help more to go with basic needs, but on the other hand, it would be dangerous as to accuse the others who are able to hoard wealth. Because if we look back at the history of socialist country of China, the communists’ ideal was to have equal distribution of wealth for everybody. But with this ideal, which is a good idea in the first place, but in the past issue with China, actually in practice, that it was reckless to [forced distribution] of enough wealth, and they went into disaster and other kinds of dictatorship by distributing the wealth according to the rules of the government and it leads to another kind of disaster, which is undesirable as well. So while we are sympathetic to the [left] basic needs for a lot of people, on the other hand, we have to be careful how to develop more, better practice to make the society a livable place.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: I heard human beings are society motivated. One of the human natures is to choose the group they belong to or to choose the master or leader they are affiliated with. Since it is human nature, how can people not choose the wealthy leader or group, but follow the poor ones? In addition, the uneven distribution of wealth is inevitable in the current world, why does someone end up into the poor group, instead of pursuing the rich one?

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Yeah, well I don't think that it is socially acceptable but it actually does happen. And because this idea of, you know, hoarding wealth. I don't know, it's -- I guess wealth gives some power some how. It's all about power, property and prestige in our society and the more wealth you have. I don't know if it's actually hoarded. I think it's invested in many ways because we have billionaires in Australia who have this enormous wealth and they're constantly buying new media outlets or newspapers and things like that. It's like I said, the more you own the better you are seen as a human being and yet again we are defined by the external of wealth and image, and power, and property, and prestige. Sometimes I think, what do you do when you have that much money? I don't know whether actually people hoard it. I think they adore it and they accumulate it, and they probably reinvest it or invest it, but it just seems it's out of proportion and there's something very indecent about having, I think, it's very indecent about hoarding wealth if that's what people do. I think it should be about sharing and it should be about helping and yeah so, to mean to hoard wealth is not socially acceptable.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: This aspect is all about governance and control, monitoring, which is a crosscutting issue in terms of governance. In order to balance the social aspects and of the livelihoods of the world, it is imperative that this aspect of social, economic hoarding of wealth to be implemented, so that it is there to monitor and control how certain aspects need to run. For example, if everyone is having a balance situation, can one say that that is a balanced government? And indeed, no. It means that there will be some other people who will have a lot of wealth and giving others, so that this issue of ecosystem is balanced properly. Those who will not have enough will then depend on those who will have. The haves will give the don’t haves and, as such, that’s my theory and understanding. That all of us cannot have enough, though the others who would be having more than others and, as such, that will be the practice of the day.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: I think it goes back to the first question on why brands are more powerful than governments. It is this culture of consumerism that is being promoted to support corporate capitalism. We are told everyday that we need the latest brand in trainers, the latest brand -- our children are being told they need the latest brand in trainers, in bikes, in whatever. And, all these manufactured needs are creating also the notion that if you have more and more money, you can consume more and more. So, I think it is disgusting, that it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs. But that is the nature of the dominant model.

by Mae-Wan Ho