• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Imagine

Rushfan62

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
586
Imagine you had almost limitless wealth, as some do in this day and age. How would you use that wealth, and the power it brings, to change the world? Now, imagine what those who have that kind of wealth are up to.....
 
I would not want that level of wealth, but I can't help but think that disproportionate wealth and influence in the wrong hands might make many conspiracy theories, fact.
 
The old families surely don't have to do anything anymore apart from maintaining their wealth.

Once you get past a certain point then what is the point of scheming anymore? Nobody can touch you, nobody knows who you are - you have unlimited wealth, you can only buy so much.
 
I'd pour money into fusion energy research.
I'd also set up colonies on the Moon and Mars.
 
If we are talking about realistic wealth of £10BN, which is what some Oligarchs have:
My focus would be on countering the effects of pollution.
That kind of money could make a difference to one country, say the UK. and hopefully encourage others overseas to follow.

I would encourage a program of tree planting in cities, to help filter exhaust pollution.

I would fund expansion of railways (mixture of surface, underground and light rail as appropriate) in cities, to encourage less car use.
The London Crossrail line costs about £16BN, which is just one line and is a mixture of of underground and overground sections, so my funding would mainly be light rail networks which are cheaper than this.

£10BN does not go very far does it!
 
There's an old saying, which is not an absolute rule, but makes sense to me: "In order to be clever enough to make all that money, you have to be stupid enough to want to."

Point is that people who build enormous personal fortunes achieve this because they prioritise it over everything else. Most of us are not like that.

Above a certain level, the money becomes no more than a system of points to show who's winning. A Ferrari or a Rolls Royce is still only a car. A mega-yacht with a liveried crew probably affords less genuine pleasure to the owner than having a 20 footer and the leisure to use it and develop your sailing skills. (At least Richard Branson spent some of his money on ballooning adventures rather than mere ostentation, so respect for that.)

Those of us who like to think that if we won Euromillions, we'd settle our friends' mortgages, see that our kids and grandkids were well provided for, and maybe set up a charitable fund or donate an area of woodland to our community, will never amass a fortune because we don't care enough about being rich.

In a way, I feel sorry for the world's 11th richest person. He or she has unimaginable wealth, but they are not in the top 10, and that surely rankles with them. Similarly, I feel slightly sorry for number 2, because he is the "nearly man", and also for number 1 because he has nowhere to go from there but down. All that money, power, and privilege, but to what end? What an empty way of living.

Nope, enough is sufficient for me.

That said, control of, say, £10 billion, would be a dangerous amount. It would be a drop in the ocean in terms of achieving world peace, solving climate change, or bringing an end to world hunger.

For comparison, £10,000,000,000 is about £143 each for everyone in the UK: a new suit of reasonably smart clothes, or a cheap bicycle each. And the UK has only about the 21st biggest population. It's about £1.40 per person in the world. You just about buy everyone a cup of coffee with it.

On the other hand, £10 billion would be enough to cause a huge amount of damage, whether deliberately, or misguidedly.

[Edited to eliminate error. UK has 21st biggest population (according to Wikipedia). I carefully looked it up then typed "economy" instead of "population" by mistake.]
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, £10 billion would be enough to cause a huge amount of damage, whether deliberately, or misguidedly.

£10BN could be enough to cause a huge amount of damage, whether deliberately, or misguidedly. But it also could be put to good use.
Just as you could spend £10 on junk food, or on more nutitious food.
Having a lot of money is not a negative in itself, squandering that money is the negative.

It does though provide a significant test of sanity if someone suddenly gains £10BN during their working life.
How do you fill your time if you no longer have a job, but all of your friends are at work during the week? Golf? Learning an instrument?
How do you maintain a marriage if you suddenly could attract a lot of nubile young women. They'd be after your money, but you'd know that anyway.
How do you avoid the lure of unlimited booze, and if so inclined, drugs?
You could afford to pay off all of your friend's mortgages (let's assume you have a realistic network of 10 close friends, and perhaps 30 more people you speak to once or twice per year.)
But every single day charities would ask for money....you would need a system and a budget in place to not feel guilty by not giving to some of them.
And your family might become a target for kidnappers.
 
£10BN could be enough to cause a huge amount of damage, whether deliberately, or misguidedly. But it also could be put to good use.
Just as you could spend £10 on junk food, or on more nutitious food.
Having a lot of money is not a negative in itself, squandering that money is the negative.

It does though provide a significant test of sanity if someone suddenly gains £10BN during their working life.
How do you fill your time if you no longer have a job, but all of your friends are at work during the week? Golf? Learning an instrument?.
You could make all of your friends multi millionaires and not even notice the reduction in your own money.
 
Something towards the Norwegian style oil fund that we don't have.
 
But every single day charities would ask for money....you would need a system and a budget in place to not feel guilty by not giving to some of them.

Speaking personally I'm not sure why this would be an issue any more than it is at the moment. I mean; there are always charities sticking leaflets through our doors or accosting us in public / wanting us to let them pack our bags at the supermarket / whatever. And it is easy to ignore them, if it is a charity which does not appeal to us. I don't feel guilty about it, and neither does Mr Zebra... why should we, if we aren't interested in the charity.

So I'm not sure that it would be any different if the Zebra household had millions in the bank... we wouldn't be more inclined to give to charities that we aren't interested in just because we would have more money to give.

I'm more than happy to try out my theory though, if someone could lend us a few million... :wink2:
 
I'd invest a lot into science research, mainly to tackle global warming and pollution, also preventable diseases. Green fuel, antibiotics. Perhaps create a world where people like scientists who do noble things get paid well, rather than the current situation where ostensibly the opposite is true.

Possibly try to provide more infrastucture and wealth creation to underdeveloped countries in order to stop them having to emigrate to other countries for a better life, then dragging them into the shit.

Having achieved those things, I'd shoot Jeremy Corbyn in the face then drink myself to death on a mountain
 
So I'm not sure that it would be any different if the Zebra household had millions in the bank... we wouldn't be more inclined to give to charities that we aren't interested in just because we would have more money to give.
It would be different.
I am working on a hypothetical basis of £10BN assets as I wrote in my post above.

Different because... I have to make an assumption here, currently you are still working, though are well above the poverty line?
So you give a little here and there, but know that it is not going to be more than that.

But if you were extremely rich, then they way charities would approach you changes.
You would be targeted by high level fundraisers....people asking you to fund museums and university scholarships, and scientific research.
You would have no personal concerns about going broke...so you would be concerned with philanthropy and your legacy, the good name of your family and your descendants.

You would likely be troubled by how much to give....would you feel guilt if you gave only 1 million pounds and kept billions in the bank?
Or woudl you feel guilt if you gave billiosn and kept just one million...enough for you to live on...but nto enough to fudn houses for your children...not in LOndon anyway.
And there would be so many begging letters, horrible tragic stories of people in trouble who need expensive life saving medical treatment only available in the USA etc... and these letters would arrive every day.

You cannot subject your emotions to that every day without suffering damage, you cannot feel guilt on a daily basis and be a well functioning human.

So you would have to set a budget, and put a system in place to manage the personal, institutional and organisational charity requests.
 
Back
Top