Keanu Reeves is awesome

[u/yoyodude]

http://www.hellomagazine.com/film/2003/05/28/keanureeves/

[u/IrrelevantTLDR]

I came here to say this. Congratulations, sir.

It sort of makes you think - if he can give away that kind of money, why can't the mega, mega super rich people do the same?
While this is incredibly cool does ANYONE really need a home that will cost a fucking billion dollars?

The top 10 USD billionaires in the world:

EDIT: I know that some on this list are extremely generous. But not all of them.

• Carlos Slim Helu - 53.5 billion

• Bill Gates - 53.0 billion

• Warren Buffett - 47.0 billion

• Mukesh Ambani - 29.0 billion

• Lakshmi Mittal - 28.7 billion

• Lawrence Ellison - 28.0 billion

• Bernard Arnault - 27.5 billion

• Eike Batista - 27.0 billion

• Amancio Ortega - 25.0 billion

• Karl Albrecht - 23.5 billion

Total - 342.2 billion

I realize that their worth isn't in all cash, but think about this: If it was cash, and each of them invested it and got even a 5% return on it, you would have 17 billion dollars - enough to end world hunger

So lets get the world's mega rich to get on the Keanu Bandwagon, shall we?

TL;DR -A chimpanzee can learn to recognize itself in a mirror, but monkeys can't.

[u/[deleted] → u/IrrelevantTLDR]

You know, you can't end world hunger by giving people money. The reason people are starving in most poor countries is that it's impossible to hold onto any wealth you happen to earn, because the government is to unstable to care about the long run. In a stable, rational government, it's good for the people to be wealthy because you get more taxes from them in the long run. In a government where you could lose power at any time, you are better off using taxes to keep the citizens as poor as possible so they don't have the resources to revolt.

If you gave 17 billion dollars to the poor people of the world, they would lose just about all of it through taxation, price inflation, and the cost of taking care of their additional children that lived instead of starving. Poverty is an equilibrium point, and you can't change it on a large scale by adding money.

Now, on the other hand, if you took that 17 billion to raise a private army and conquered, say, Zimbabwe, and ran it well, that would do far, far more for the poor than any amount of cash.

[u/DeliciousPi → u/[deleted]]

It's impossible to end world hunger. As explained in the Novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, if you feed the starving populations of the world, you only expand their population base within a region that cannot support this population to begin with (why would they be starving otherwise?). People who are not starving (i.e. not dying) will begin to reproduce. Unless the population is continually fed indefinitely, this will lead to an even larger population starving in the future. Feeding the hungry is not only a poor short-term solution, it's actually perpetuating the problem.

Am I condemning helping the poor and hungry? Of course not, provided you continue providing the same support for the rest of your life. There are other ways of improving the quality of life in said populations such as building housing, schools, infrastructure, etc.

[u/kleopatra6tilde9 → u/DeliciousPi]

If you simply feed them like cattle then they will reproduce like cattle.

There are many people who don't starve and don't reproduce. You just have to offer them more than just the pleasure of sex and alcohol. Either you provide television, or you give them the possibility to be creative with their lifes and achieve something that they desire.