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

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Because we are in the era of the individual. It is the individual that matters. It is acceptable to hoard wealth if it serves your individual interests. We see everything in individual terms. Our market is in individual terms. The way we market products are in individual terms. When we want to sell something, we think of the individual consumer, not of the collective consumer. When we talk about rights, we think of individual rights, not of collective rights. This is a big debate in rights discourse. Should individual rights take precedence, so much precedence, over other principles and concepts like collective rights? As it stands now, the concept of individual rights wins, speaks the last word. But when we think of the individual and the individual needs first and foremost, then it becomes socially acceptable to hoard our wealth. And it becomes far less important why, how, to what extent so many others go without basic needs. This is a cultural problem. This is a social problem. This is a political problem. This is a problem for all levels, and you see different facets of our societies reinforcing the individual. You see it in our culture, in our art production, in television programs. Very often it is the individual. And we’ve lost the significance of the collective. The collective takes on meanings of backwardness, tribalism. The individual takes on meanings of modernity and progress. These are definitions and concepts that need to be rethought.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: It is socially not acceptable, it is just done. That's the nature of men. They don't ask, if it's acceptable or not. They just go as far as they can go without getting slapt on their heads. So as long as people in richer countries for example or it doesn't have to be a richer country or in a structure that is in power or is privileged. As long as they all [buddying?] up and feeling that the use of power and resources of other people still benefits them, they just going to do it. So the hoarding of wealth is more of the side effect, that's evolutionary, man has a tendency to first protect himself, then the inner circle, then the relatives and then if you want to the society or a country or other structures. The raison is just the more resources I have, in nature, the better I can reproduce and it's very much about egoistic gens if you want. But now in our times this all running wild. There are enough resources and there is enough wealth [directly?], but our evolutionary program is not yet there. So I think biologically it is acceptable,, culturally it is not acceptable. We just have to take the next step.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: It is due to the neoliberal economic model that global wealth lies in the hands of a few ones. This model is not socially accepted, on the contrary, currently it is seriously called into question by the example of Bolivia. Bolivian government fights in order to get back its energetic resources and to put it at disposal of its people again. Cuba is another example: earlier sugar was an object of interest of First World countries, nowadays Cuba exploits sugar for its own people, which means that the model is not accepted.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: The acceptance of wealth is permitted by only the people who enjoying the wealth and not by the people all around the world. This (i.e., to hoard wealth) happens because of the thoughtless process of human race i.e. lack of consideration of distributing the wealth, because of insistence of one's right of freedom, and the insatiability. Again, this only happens due to the people who accept to enjoy the wealth. But if those people awake their inner thought, heighten the awareness of their selfishness, and endeavor to consider the people who endure the food, clothing and shelter, then the world becomes more peaceful. However, the main reasons of such problems are our mind of egoism and one's greediness, which should be changed to create a peaceful harmonized world. I think it is important that the people who are living in wealthy countries reflect on their life and consider poor people.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: Well, I think that we should be ashamed of this. There are so many people in the world without their basic needs. So, I think it's a duty of every human being, whichever part you are, whether you are in developed country to see that everyone in the world can have their basic needs, three times a food, children can have a better life, and they can have health and education. So, I think it’s -- you know, the wealth we have, we have to distribute it and make our world live peacefully. Don't say that one part of the world is wealth and other part is not wealth. I think it's so important in today’s world that make people feel they are part of this world and we have to care as a human being that what is other part of the world need, the basic needs. So, I think it's just very sad, very sad.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: The simple answer is nature and nurture. So, why people hoard wealth? It has to do with two basic reasons: One is, [worth]. The normal human being left alone will do because of the instinct perhaps encoded in the genes. And second is culture, which of course is not always independent of the genes or the nature. And then there are cultures which encourage people to be powerful, to be leaders, to be at the top or phrases like that, enhance the [inaudible]. And right now it’s very hard to decide for which one is it, my guess is that it is both. It’s in our selves; it’s in our genes perhaps. For us to come out at the top of the social hierarchy in the best way to get at the top social hierarchy is to hoard as much wealth as we can. If you have any doubts you can just look at the behaviors of animals in the wild. Invariably, the alpha male hoards wealth which is women or females in their species to the extent other males have no chance. I think this perhaps the hoarding of wealth in human beings to the extent that others don’t have basic needs, others basic needs are not met, it’s kind of a reflection of the same behavior. So, perhaps it is in our genes and will have to really get educated and see other long term good of humanity and of ourselves, to feel that doing these things in this way or just hoarding for oneself is perhaps good for ourselves and for one or two generations of our own. If you hoard enough billions of dollars, but probably not good for us in the very long-term. And the way out of this would be is only one way in fact, if it all that’s the way, I’m not even sure that this can work, is to educate people and show them that by being secure and interdependence or interdependent existence across the world, they will be able to live more happily rather than being on isolated on their own.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: It’s something that has been going on for centuries, otherwise, we wouldn’t have things like the seven deadly sins. Humans, it seem, have shortcomings that find satisfaction in consumption, endless consumption, conspicuous consumption. It’s almost as if all of these devices that we purchase are genetic expansions, exo-skeletons or exo -- whether you think of a car as a more -- a larger protective outer layer. We tend to define ourselves now by our biggest houses and biggest cars and the amount of vacations we take. It seems that here also our leaders, our moral leaders, and churches if anything promote financial wealth as a sign of religious well being. It’s very offensive and we have lost all sense of the simplicity of life. When we see a President like in the United States, George Bush Sr., with his motorboat, a cigar boat as they call it, a cigarette boat, what a contrast to somebody like Thich Nhat Hanh who does simple walking meditations for his enjoyment. We seem to have lost how -- the art of the simple treasures of life, whether it’s gardening, or taking walks in the countryside, spending time with the family, and playing games, creating art and music. But it does require us to confront, I think, this whole conspicuous pattern. There's a very revealing last words of Jesus Christ when he said, “I am consummated.”

by Michael P. Totten

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mohammed Arkoun: Yes, is it this legitimate to amass material goods whereas there are people who are not able to? That is the question. As it appears, it seems that the author of the question accepts the idea that it is legitimate to accumulate material goods without thinking about an equitable sharing of material goods in order to allow the others to benefit from it in the same way; and therefore there is an important matter of political legitimacy. And this is a question that touches the organization of political systems which accept to see inequalities developoing inside a same society; and to make accumulation on the one hand and to let people become impoverished, so that there is a monopolization of material goods by a class that provoked in history, since the 19th century, the famous struggle of classeswhich has been theorized by the marxism and which has created all the Communist movement that rested on the working proletariat as the industrialization started in Europe; and we know the consequences of this accumulation of goods in the hands of reduced social groups, of families, of big families, for example, or even now of developing corporations capable even to impose their power on the states and to weigh on the political working of states. So this is the posed question of this legitimacy and we must think about it, and unfortunately the struggles for the proletariat to emancipate societies, to emancipate exploited workers, and to change the way wealth is being distributed in societies...

by Mohammed Arkoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Mohau Pheko: It's absolutely unacceptable to hoard wealth. But, I think that the way in which wealth is created, the way in which status is developed and the way in which human beings define themselves and identify themselves and position themselves in the world and how they measure their success has become equal to how we create, how wealth is -- the sort of wealth that we have been able to accumulate. And I think that the hoarding of wealth is indicative of greed in the world and especially because this wealth does not circulate amongst a huge population of people, this is a sort of wealth that actually circulates among very few people in the world. And this notion that only a small percentage of people in the world should be allowed to control enormous amount of wealth is unethical to a large extent. And I think that we have to find ways to reward success, different ways other than hoarding wealth, we have to find ways of creating wealth that does not allow only a few people to accumulate wealth and we have to find ways to distribute wealth so that the fruits of what has been created in the world today, distributed evenly to the people who live on the margins as well as really ensuring that wealth is used in such a way that we create sustainable communities, we create sustainable development for the world.

by Mohau Pheko

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Monira Rahman: This is the question of values and again it is the same way I should say - the values which is promoting selfishness and thinking about people, not serving others and therefore some people are hoarding this wealth. We see a big contradiction between the rich people and the poor people. I think this is the societal attitude and values where promoting this selfishness and thinking about the individuals, not about the society, not about the people of this planet. In that way some people are hoarding wealth while others basic needs are not met. And the political economy, obviously, which is promoting hoarding wealth among a certain group of people, and making rich people more rich and poor people more poor.

by Monira Rahman

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Nadja Halilbegovich: We’ve come to live in a world largely obsessed with acquiring things, being wealthy, acquiring status and that’s a very sad reality of our world. Again, I think it's important to define wealth and if wealth means just going to have more and more and never having enough and always being obsessed by that then it's absolutely unacceptable. I think that it creates just such a terrible imbalance of poverty and wealth. So many people suffer from that. I think that wealth should be redefined and wealth should mean having, but also giving. And that means for individuals or for groups or families to be a part of charitable organization or going into countries that don’t have enough and realizing that these people can help the poor people. And, we can do so much with our wealth and on a happy note, I think there have been so many individuals. It's hard to name some of them because there are so many of them, but in particular perhaps Bono, the singer of U2 or Bill Gates and other humanitarians who really use their wealth and their fame, their status as a currency to help to fund incredible humane projects. And, so I think that all of us regardless of our wealth and our position should find in our hearts to help those who are -- who don’t have enough. And, there is always going to be someone wealthier than us and someone poorer than us. So, we should all engage in this project of balancing out our planet and finding more quality and fairness in our lives.

by Nadja Halilbegovich

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Neela Marikkar: Well, I think that one of the problems is there is a general disconnect between the rich and the poor, and I think that this is a gap that’s widening everyday. And, what happens is many of the rich, they sort of form their own groups of like-minded people, and they live within their own community, and they are pretty disconnected from what’s happening in the rest of the world. I think that it is something that that disconnect needs to be merged in some way. I mean you are seeing some increase, they are seeing some changes. I mean you are seeing the Bill Gates of this world is going out to Africa and doing work on AIDS. I think there is a growing desire on people who have reached a very high level of wealth to start looking at issues because of a social consciousness, and I think that is a great step forward, and that needs to be encouraged. But, I also have to say, you know, it is a free world, and wealth creation is a right of anyone who has the ability to do it. So, I don’t think that we could criticize people for being wealthy, because that is something that they have a right. I mean, many of the people who are wealthy today are people who had small beginnings. So, I think that wealth creation – being wealthy is not something that one can frown on. But it’s a question of finding the connection between those who have and those who haven’t, and that is the problem, because right now that gap is widening, and -- but we have to ensure that there is no – there are ways and means of connecting, for people who are living in this -- their own world, to understand that there is far bigger problems outside, and they have to – I mean there is -- this my personal view, that much is expected of those who have much, and little is expected of those who have little. So, I think that those who have much have to begin to understand the responsibility that goes with having much.

by Neela Marikkar

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Oliviero Toscani: 50,000 – you know humanities on this world not – since not so long, we started to eat on the table as using a table to eat 3000 years ago. Michelangelo designed his 16 Chapel, 400 year ago, you know, 400 year is nothing. It’s – we are not – we are primitive yet. We are on the way to civilization. And there are thing that goes on, you know, they are not so different from some centuries ago, and we are now starting to understand and those habits, those system that way of behaving is probably not the right way to behave. And of course all the difference between rich and poor, it is a big problem, and we are now facing the fact that probably we have to do something about it. And I think that it would – it will happen, I’m optimist – I’m optimistic, yes. We are now finally posing the questions seriously and we are understanding. And that, that is a big problem and we will solve it one day.

by Oliviero Toscani

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Oscar Olivera: I don’t know which society will have accepted that wealth is being hoarded. We, the impoverished peoplse of the world have never socially accepted that other imperial and capitalistic powers are have been hoarding our riches. It’s not about a social acception; it’s about an authoritarian, aggressive, vertical, military, imperialistic imposition of the huge supranational capitals that are hoarding our riches. Definitely, socially we don’t accept [] anymore.We are fighting to get back what have been hoarded, what have been expropriated because auf those interests, and we are achieving that goal. The clear example of Bolivia shows, that the territorial occupation of the huge supranational capitals has been object of a mobilization by the people who are legitimately getting back, what have been hoarded for those interests.We definitely haven’t socially accepted that; it was forced on us, and we are [] the capability to get back, to reacquire, what until now has been appropriated

by Oscar Olivera