The Pub - Discuss Anything

[manpe 10,861]

Just because he has 23 billion dollars means he has to give it all away to problems that can't really be fixed by just throwing money at it? Who's to say he isn't doing charity work with the rest of his money and that this luxury buy was a one off? Jealousy and prejudice at its height. Remember, our beloved club owner is no better. For example he spent 50 million pounds (81 mill USD) on a much shittier investment.

[Naked Mole Rat 437]

What a waste of money when two thirds of the World do not have access to clean water.

Hope the fucker crashes

Do you think it's a moral thing to wish death upon someone else even if you think he's in the wrong?

[Fulham Broadway 16,832]

Do you think it's a moral thing to wish death upon someone else even if you think he's in the wrong?

Fucking right. I hope the people, all the migrant slave workers of Dubai rise up in a glorious proper Arab spring and slowly torture the fucker first.

But thats just me....

[Fulham Broadway 16,832]

Official;

Twatter is a cash cow for the FA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20772217

[Kieran. 6,317]

Just because he has 23 billion dollars means he has to give it all away to problems that can't really be fixed by just throwing money at it? Who's to say he isn't doing charity work with the rest of his money and that this luxury buy was a one off? Jealousy and prejudice at its height. Remember, our beloved club owner is no better. For example he spent 50 million pounds (81 mill USD) on a much shittier investment.

I think he should give 95% of it away. Roman, too.

But that's just me.

[Naked Mole Rat 437]

Just because he has 23 billion dollars means he has to give it all away to problems that can't really be fixed by just throwing money at it? Who's to say he isn't doing charity work with the rest of his money and that this luxury buy was a one off? Jealousy and prejudice at its height. Remember, our beloved club owner is no better. For example he spent 50 million pounds (81 mill USD) on a much shittier investment.

Yeah, there's a clear double standard. I've yet to read anything about Roman making any significant donations to charities, and if words got out, they'd appear here the first thing. Some things I've read about Roman have even suggested me that he might have a shady past during which he accumulated so much wealth. These things never get discussed. Besides, what these rich people do with their money is their business. A lot of people make a waste of their money just not to the extent some of these super rich guys do because obviously they can't. Does that mean they're all evil and deserve so much hatred? Do people have the responsibility to spend every penny they would otherwise spend on things that they don't actually 'need' to help others out? I mean it would be an honourable thing to stifle your desire for a new yacht or a phone to feed and protect the underprivileged, but is it such a terrible thing for people to spend their money solely for themselves that it's justified for some of us to wish harm on those people? Not to mention that there is little to suggest that this guy doesn't donate any (same with Roman, of course), and even if he's a complete hoarder, it doesn't necessarily mean he's being selfish because he's evil and wants the poor people to suffer, it could just mean he's really out of touch.

[dave30 728]

Alright Dave. About 800+ million , so this bloke from UNICEFsaid.

Its a lot - 3.5 million die every year because of it mostly children, but it costs so little to save a life.

Im sure he'd feel better about himself if he contributed that money to save many thousands of lives. Mabye we should write to him haha

[Laylabelle 9,351]

Official;

Twatter is a cash cow for the FA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20772217

£10,000 bloody hell....I'd just quit it now be a lot cheaper!

[Fulham Broadway 16,832]

.Some things I've read about Roman have even suggested me that he might have a shady past during which he accumulated so much wealth. These things never get discussed.

Just before the collapse of the Soviet Union state assets -stuff that belonged to all the people of Russia -were sold off by the ever increasingly drunk Boris Yeltsin to 'oligarchs'. They were basically spivs who imported western goods and sold at a vast profit.

They positioned themselves round Yeltsin like vultures ready for the gas and oil sell off that they knew they could buy for a fraction of its real worth.

These included Gaidamar. Beresovsky (the one that had a row with Abaramovich) and Abramovich himself. Oligarchs are as "about as popular with your average Russian as a man idly burning bundles of £50s outside an orphanage". Hence many left the country. Some say Abramovich bought CFC as insurance thus making it almost impossible to ever be taken to any sort of court at a later date in Russia

[Sheva. 5,373]

People love to hate on the rich and successful, but it's not their fault they're lucky enough to have so much money.

They also do not have to give it away because you think that's right - you have the money, fucking enjoy it.

[dave30 728]

People love to hate on the rich and successful, but it's not their fault they're lucky enough to have so much money.

They also do not have to give it away because you think that's right - you have the money, fucking enjoy it.

I admire those who are successful and to a certain extent aspire to be in a situation in which one would have enough money (through hard work) to live a comfortable life in relative luxury. Trust me im no communist but to spend that kind of money on a personal plane just seems obscene. There should always be wealth differentials but must they be so enormous ?

[Hutcho 8,443]

I think if someone has done well for themselves through legitimate means and earned thier money then they can do whatever they want with their money. They get taxed heavily which is great for the government etc, which can then spend more on their citezens like the benefits system in this country. Also rich people spending money is great for the economy as it benefits from the multiplier effect and benefits a lot of money.

He has no obligation to give his money away of he doesn't want to.

[Hutcho 8,443]

I admire those who are successful and to a certain extent aspire to be in a situation in which one would have enough money (through hard work) to live a comfortable life in relative luxury. Trust me im no communist but to spend that kind of money on a personal plane just seems obscene. There should always be wealth differentials but must they be so enormous ?

But the wealth differentials are down to the system surely and not the fault of the rich guy. Its also better off he spends the money than let it sit there in a bank gaining interest.

[dave30 728]

But the wealth differentials are down to the system surely and not the fault of the rich guy. Its also better off he spends the money tham let it sit there in a bank gaining interest.

Yer i mean it is right that there is wealth differential but i think were in danger of having a out of touch elite at the top and a underclass at the bottom. The collective middle is the most important. people should always have the opportunity to earn more than someone else if they work harder but i don't think any one person should be able to rise massively above or massively below the average person.

[Hutcho 8,443]

Yer i mean it is right that there is wealth differential but i think were in danger of having a out of touch elite at the top and a underclass at the bottom. The collective middle is the most important. people should always have the opportunity to earn more than someone else if they work harder but i don't think any one person should be able to rise massively above or massively below the average person.

I think we already have that tbh, especially in a lot of countries, particularly some countries in places like africa where the population is extremely poor yet the leader is tremendously rich.

[dave30 728]

I think we already have that tbh, especially in a lot of countries, particularly some countries in places like africa where the population is extremely poor yet the leader is tremendously rich.

Yer i agree taxation isn't necessarily the answer, community action and charity work will always be more personal and effective than state intervention. Unfortunately liberalism be it classic, modern or neo now has a monopoly over politics. Nationalism, Socialism or Conservatism don't really have a look in anymore and we miss out on a lot of good ideas due to their exclusion.

[Hutcho 8,443]

Yer i agree taxation isn't necessarily the answer, community action and charity work will always be more personal and effective than state intervention. Unfortunately liberalism be it classic, modern or neo now has a monopoly over politics. Nationalism, Socialism or Conservatism don't really have a look in anymore and we miss out on a lot of good ideas due to their exclusion.

Well we can blame russia for giving it a bad press...

I think it varies greatly from country to country. In the uk we have an extremely detailed benefits system which is often highly critised, and often with good reasoning, as there are many disadvantages particularly in an economic sense, but it does prevent having an extreme underclass, and ensures that on the whole (some exceptions of course) we have a kind of poverty line people will not cross. A liberty which most countries do not have creating a problem with the wealh distribution of a particular country. So where we live, taxation can be effective as it is pumbed back to us in the main, even if we do operate on a budget deficit in the main, although you are definitely correct that it isn't the answer on a worldwide scale as we will get rich people (leaders) taxing poor people and pocketing the money for themselves creating a bigger gap between the richer people in society and the poorer people.

[dave30 728]

Well we can blame russia for giving it a bad press...

I think it varies greatly from country to country. In the uk we have an extremely detailed benefits system which is often highly critised, and often with good reasoning, as there are many disadvantages particularly in an economic sense, but it does prevent having an extreme underclass, and ensures that on the whole (some exceptions of course) we have a kind of poverty line people will not cross. A liberty which most countries do not have creating a problem with the wealh distribution of a particular country. So where we live, taxation can be effective as it is pumbed back to us in the main, even if we do operate on a budget deficit in the main, although you are definitely correct that it isn't the answer on a worldwide scale as we will get rich people (leaders) taxing poor people and pocketing the money for themselves creating a bigger gap between the richer people in society and the poorer people.

Yer im not advocating socialism by any means i actively dislike the philosophy as among other things it favours a big redistributive state as opposed to power devolved to its lowest local level which i think is a better idea, but at its grass roots its encourages commerardary. Liberalism has created a sense of selfish individual consumerism that places competition over community togetherness. Blame immigration or greed, you still get back to the same point, communities are fragmenting and allowing people to go under. The collective system is far better in my opinion than its individualistic counter parts that's why i listed the three systems that (in their true form at lease) adhere to this.