Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Good question. I don’t think it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs; but we have been brainwashed where basically when you look at your television or you look at the media, it’s about selling which has changed us from being human beings into consumers buying more and it is okay. Your standards are judged by the car that you have, by the size of the television that you have, the number of rooms you have in your house. And that again is perhaps in some cultures, in some cultures still even today it is not socially acceptable for people to go without, for example, food. They are built into your customs, into cultural habits that you would share; and, I think, it’s about challenging those definitions of what is socially acceptable. Does the media, do the corporations get to define through the advertising that it is okay for people to go hungry; that if they are hungry, it’s because of their own fault; that they are not working hard enough? And we have to break those myths, to dismantle them, and to start looking at those cultures which is still promoting the idea of sharing knowledge, of sharing resources, of sharing food because that’s one of the big ways of having peace in this world.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Again, I find this question to be symptomatic of these two different forms of consciousness and culture that I have been developing, the egocentric culture and the culture based upon integral, whole systems, holistic, the logos culture, let us say. And, it is not socially acceptable in this awakened culture to exploit others and to not tend to the basic needs of others. Basic human compassion, basic moral consciousness, require us to tend to one another as ourselves. So, what is socially acceptable in the awakened culture is -- may not be acceptable or social acceptable in an egocentric culture that may accept dominance and repression and hoarding and keeping from [inaudible] which goes against our human moral grain of mutual care and compassion. So, I would say it’s not socially acceptable in an awakened social order to hoard while others go without. That is highly immoral and unjust and inhuman. So, in a truly awakened human compassionate culture, it is acceptable to tend to the needs of all, to the poverty, to those who do not have and to tend to them, which is a kind of teaching that we get from a teacher like Jesus who said, “When I was poor, you fed me; when I was hungry you fed me, when I was in prison, you visited me.” That is the kind of consciousness of the awakened culture or of the culture of Buddha’s teaching of tending to the needs of all beings and sacredness of all beings including tending to nature. So, those are the two kinds of cultural forces that I think are vital in looking at this question.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: I wouldn't say it's so much socially acceptable, it certainly is not morally acceptable, but to the extent that people value their identity with things that are externally based, with possessions and expensive possessions, and we strive to have that be the definition of living well, then it becomes a prize, an asset, a goal that people strive towards so that their idea of success in life is wrapped around the trappings of wealth. To that extent, if everyone strives towards wealth as the ideal and the defining way in which you qualify as having a successful life, then we -- and we do so blindly without thinking about how our brothers and sisters are affected by that drive, the accomplishment of that goal -- then we have to be willing to say that this way of living, this goal in life must be modified. So it is a moral -- becomes a moral imperative that we change the materialistic paradigm as being the paradigm of life and what it means to be successful in that life. On some level, we do understand that it is not morally acceptable to have an overabundance of material things that are really luxury items when so many of the world's people go without the basic necessities like [audio ends].

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: It shouldn’t be socially acceptable, but our culture is, our system is setup in a way that awards those who are selfish, rewards those who consume more. In truth, it should not be acceptable. In an eightfold path of Raja yoga, the first step is one of five restraints; non-stealing is one of these. By taking more of your share, you’re stealing from others. By hoarding wealth, one is doing no service to any. From money moves like water if you hold it, if you retain it, if you stop the flow, you’re hoarding. You’re hoarding this money. It will not allow the cycle to continue, it will not allow the energy to flow. If we allow for the more free formed flow of wealth, it will be a more wealthy culture in society. That’s what should be socially acceptable, is to redistribute the surplus. So we need to reprioritize the way in which we look at wealth. Fair share should be the status quo; fair share with our brothers and our sisters and our friends, across the world, the countries, the boundaries.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Benson Venegas: When a society is economically dominant, there is a growing feeling of superiority in their people. Then, it become socially acceptable to think that you're the chosen one. So the accumulation of wealth is a gift, or a premium, to your efforts to be more intelligent, or to be more wealthy, or because of your effort. And at the end a minority of people think that their wealth is first, without caring about others, or the consequence of their [overconsumption] or productive patterns. Promoting as a result, a non-equal distribution of income. So, I think we need to change this perception, trying to see how responsible we are in the way we grow in our economy. We need to create this sense that what happens in my country, in my home, in my neighborhood, could effect, or could be related, or linked to what happened in a neighborhood in Africa, or in [inaudible] of Brazil. So this interconnectedness is very important for us to be more responsible and to really sense that our economical decisions, our actions, can be really have a global wide impact in what is happening in other economies. So we need to build on this really broad and global understanding and perspective of our actions. tive of our actions.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Beverly Schwartz: I think it's socially acceptable to have money and it always has been. I don't think it's socially acceptable to hoard wealth. And I think it's less socially acceptable not to be socially responsible. So that I see now in this century and more so in the last decade, more people with more wealth giving more money to social causes, to people who have less, to people who need more, people who need help. But not so just to give money for basic needs, but to make people sustainable in their basic needs; to make programs sustainable. And so I think more and more things change. And more and more equality and more people are doing more good things with their money. And if it's a system of capitalism or monarchy or socialism or communism, there's always people who have more and people who have less; and there always probably will be. But more and more of the people who have, that haves, are giving more to the have-nots, but in a very different way, and that is good because it's not just giving money or giving charity. It's giving skills. It's giving self empowerment. It's giving self identity. It's giving a means, a skills, to help yourself or help your children so that you don't need to keep on taking money, but you, in the end, can provide for yourself. So I think things are going in the right direction as more people with more money are seeing that their money can do much good in a social way, and in fact they feel better about that.

by Beverly Schwartz

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Bill Joy: Well it shouldn’t be acceptable that people go without basic needs. But what are the basic needs? Clearly everyone should have basic human rights, should have access to food, water, security for their family, should have ability to get an education and to try to seek a job and to participate in the world economy and use their creativity. So we need to give everyone a chance to do this, to be educated and do worthy work and to recognize that they can contribute and that the world would be a much more peaceful place if we bring to everyone those basic material needs so that the sources of conflict in the world can be reduced. I don’t think it would cost very much. We simply have to find the will to provide people the ability to be sustainable and to do these things locally. And it’s not just a matter of feeding people. We have to give them true opportunity to participate and feel self-worth. And I think this is something that with all the great problems that we face, engaging everyone in the world and addressing those problems is a must, and this should be the century where go and really try to end poverty and make sure everyone’s basic needs are met. It should be a moral imperative.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Bora Cosic: Sense when it’s socially acceptable to hoard wealth? It is just necessary evil! However there are many faces to the whole complex of enrichment. I understand that some people impulse to create, a new fabric, a new industrial drivetrain (engine), or a whole new way of production. Without it there wouldn’t be European civilization and American by no means. However in this complex of enrichment there is a psychological moment, when someone who is starting from a small workshop grows into the chain of glamorous fabrics where 1 million of people work, it becomes a whole imperia. I guess that that person goes crazy of hoards, not only of hoards of wealth, but of hoards of ideas. I believe in every work there should be only one idea and not a lot of them.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Brian J. Weller: If you think about this question, particularly its origination in the U.S., it is socially unacceptable to hoard wealth. Let’s look at maybe one of the root causes why this happens. I believe that it’s due to a misunderstanding of the nature of money and currency. If you think about it, money is really a medium of exchange and it should be continuously spent. This is opposed to thinking of money as a store of value. When you think about storing value, you think about hoarding it. What happens then is money is no longer flowing. It’s no longer being spent. It’s no longer being created out of exchange. It’s now being hoarded as some kind of entity and that, I believe, is a misunderstanding and a misuse of the nature of money. If you think about it, since money is an IOU of a government or central bank, its value is really determined more by monetary management policies than by market forces. This confusion causes huge disruptions in the rightful exchange of real things. So, we need to realign and re-understand what money is, and when we’ve done that, I believe, then we’ll have a real return to economic and fiscal justice. Thank you.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Catherine David: I do not know if it is socially acceptable. On a purely personal level, it seems to me as a prove of mental health not to wallow in consumption and to refrain from all the things that we do not really need. I think before looking at society, we should begin to deal with ourselves and I think that, in deed, it is not forcefully wanted and appropriate as far as the individual is concerned to devour oneself. I believe that we can symbolically resist, we can resist but we would resist symbolically. Sometimes, it is good to start by resisting a bit more practically and not to string together and to destroy oneself by purely useless consumption. I think that it is not even a question of discipline but a question of hygiene.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: I think we're greedy. And I think we should begin to wish what I have, wish it for others. And it shouldn't be acceptable, and I think since we are in this world together, this is our model world. This is we human. We should [cherish] such a feelings that one has, or things that the world try to teach us or to accept and live with it.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: It cannot be justified, neither socially nor morally, that over one billion people today still live on less than a dollar a day, that of the 500 million inhabitants of Latin America we have a high percentage of people that live under the subsistence level. It cannot be justified that Bolivia, a state with the greatest natural resources and gas resources in the world, with an indigenous population of 60 to 70% still has not integrated this indigenous population into the democratic process, which is only just starting now - slowly. That states such as Peru that have a high production of gold, a production of copper, cannot compete in the international market, because American or European affiliated groups reduce the value and don't reinvest in the affected states, but redirect investments into the states of the first world. It is only obvious, that now with president Morales in Bolivia, a new government tries for the first time to make use of the gas production in favor of their own population, but of course encounters massive resistance, e.g. by Petrobas, the huge Brazilian energy company and also by neighboring states that don't want to tolerate the raise of the gas prices. This inequality cannot be morally justified and the attempt of the world bank and the United Nations to revise the inequality of hunger is now already a mere utopia, because the industrial politics of the first world basically don't allow it in their wish to export the industrial production into the states of the third world. I have already talked about agricultural aids.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Cornel West: The issue of levels of inequality that generate lifestyles of narcissism and hedonism and egoism is a complex one because, on the one hand, [inaudible] should agree that human beings often, though not always, tend to be indifferent to the suffering of others if those others’ voices are not heard. The cultures of consumption that have been reinforced by the capitalist mode of production for over 300 years make it permissible, make it even in some ways desirable to hoard tremendous levels of wealth, while other people are crying out for food, for water, for health care and for dignity. On the other hand, we’ve seen over the last 100 years or so significant democratic movements that have had enormous impact on reshaping the elite sensibilities, elite power, elite clout that we should not downplay insignificant social movements from below and struggle for individual collective rights of everyday people, so that more and more needs are satisfied. So, that degree of too many people from above has some legal and moral constraint, such that indifference to the plight of those below does not become the norm. As always it’s been a difficult struggle; it always will be. Yet there is hope.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: Yes, those people who are practicing hoarding are those people who love their profit than their life. It become their culture to hoard wealth to maintain their economic status in the society, and the worst thing is they make everything being acceptable by everybody to justify their act of hoarding wealth. And, for me, this is -- it goes to the basic question that this people really love their profit than valuing life of other people who are hungry or who doesn’t have or who can’t eat three times a day in their homes. So, we wish to address this question to these people who have much enough to share their wealth and stop hoarding wealth but rather distribute their wealth to the needy.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: I think you point, Mr. Kent, I think you point at an issue which I find very important and that’s solidarity. Realizing that we need to share our wealth in order to create a better balance in the world is very important. But to hoard wealth is a human instinct. I think it goes back to the caveman gathering food to go to so he’s sure that the winter will not be so hard, but a lot of Western countries have more wealth than they need. Unfortunately, even in the Western countries themselves, this wealth is not equally distributed because I think it’s a lack of solidarity. I don’t think we should go and moralize with people about people gathering wealth and say, "Wow you’re such a bad person. It’s not socially accepted for you to be rich." Because rich people also have a role to play. They produce money also and they produce wealth but what we really need to see is that wealth is distributed equally and that wealth is distributed in a way that creates better balance and that is an issue of solidarity, which is something maybe a level of consciousness that we as human beings as part of, as members of this global world, have to develop.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara:

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: This has been a perennial condition, after all the people in the castles weren’t thinking too much about the serfs outside picking the potatoes. In the 19th century city, you had people of enormous wealth who pushed up right against the people of incredible poverty and beggars and so forth, still exists of course now in the cities of the world today. But, the fact of asking the question of course once again is -- it’s a question that was not asked by the people in the castles and was not asked terribly often in the 19th century city. So, to ask the question once again shows a kind of shift of mentality. Obviously, it’s not socially acceptable. Obviously, one would prefer to live in an egalitarian world, which is a kind of Utopian dream that will not be realized, but one can move a little bit towards its realization. So, I think that asking the question is an important beginning on the road to an answer.

by Eliot Weinberger