THE WORLD'S BILLIONAIRES AND THE GAME OF GIVING

	The combined wealth of the world's three richest people is greater than
the total income of the 48 poorest nations.

	The 84 richest people own assets worth more than the total annual
production (GDP) of all 1.2 billion Chinese.

	Together the world's 225 billionaires are worth $1 trillion, equal to
the annual incomes of just under half (2.7 billion) of the global population.

	Statistics like these, which are taken from the 1998 Human Development
Report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), make me mad twice
over.  My heart gets mad at the gross inequity they convey.  My mind gets mad
at the glaring error of equating wealth with income.  Surely the people who put
out these numbers know better.

	Take that $1 trillion owned by those 225 billionaires.  It has
accumulated over one or several lifetimes.  If it were all distributed to the
2.7 billion poorest people (which seems to be the implication of rich/poor
comparisons), they would get $370 apiece, which would double their average
income for one year.  Then the party would be over.  If the poor invested the
windfall in a cow or machine or house, or at least got out of debt, some
lasting good would be done by this grand global potlatch, but poverty would
persist.

	However, let's assume that the 225 billionaires get a modest five
percent return on their combined trillion bucks.  That comes to a total of $50
billion a year, an average of $222 million per billionaire.  Suppose they
limited themselves to a frugal $2 million a year apiece in personal spending
and gave the rest ($49.5 billion) to help the poor on an ongoing basis.

	Here's what they could buy, according to that same UNDP report.  Basic
education for all the world's children ($6 billion, in addition to what is
already being spent).  Clean water and sanitation for everyone ($9 billion). 
Proper nutrition and health care for those who do not now have them ($13
billion).  Reproductive health and family planning services for all women ($12
billion).  That adds up to $40 billion -- there'd be $9.5 billion left to
protect the environment or promote peace.  Year after year.

	To produce those results the billionaires would retain their wealth,
but they'd have to drop out of the game of seeing who can pile up most.  They
would get to play a different game, to see who could do the most to make the
world work for everyone.  They could give us all the unimaginable experience of
living without the constant shadow of poverty and hunger and illiteracy.  I
presume it was just such a challenge that moved Ted Turner to pledge a billion
dollars to the United Nations and Bill Gates to give $100 million to vaccinate
poor children.

	A wonderful magazine called "More than Money" (2244 Alder St., Eugene
OR 97405, 541-343-2420, ) is full of stories about people of
wealth who play serious giving games.  Such as Tom Lowe, chairman of the Lyman
Lumber Company, who is organizing fellow Minnesotans to give away a minimum of
one percent of their net worth each year.  He figures that if Minnesota's
28,000 richest citizens did that, they would increase charitable giving by five
times the budget of the Minneapolis United Way.  Claude Rosenberg's book
Wealthy and Wise says that the top 20 percent of the wealthy in the United
States could give over $100 billion a year more than they now do and their
fortunes would continue to grow.

	Here are some incredible but very real quotes from contributors to the
Winter 1998 issue of "More than Money":

	"I first gave away all income from my inherited stocks, then about five
percent of my net worth a year, and finally up to 10 percent of assets a year. 
My principal grew, even at this rate of giving!  I saw my contributions make
deep dreams come true and I was motivated to keep giving more."

	"For a long time I gave away 50 percent of my taxable income because
that was what was deductible.  A couple of years ago, my taxable income dropped
dramatically, and my accountant told me I 'couldn't' give away so much that
year.  I decided I wouldn't let the government or my accountant make that
decision for me.  So now I give what I want, and it's more than 50 percent."

	"Financial advisors generally assume that wealthy people share the goal
of giving as little money as possible to the government.  I see things quite
differently.  I am proud to support vital government services with my tax
dollars.  I know that philanthropy can never, by itself, create the kind of
society I want.  We should not withdraw our financial support from the
government, but work to make it better."

	The billionaires could easily put up $50 billion a year to end hunger
and poverty, the millionaires could supply another $100 billion, but why should
the rest of us let them have all the fun?  Fifty billion is the amount
Europeans spend in a year on cigarettes or Americans spend on soft drinks. 
It's the annual cost of business entertainment expenses in Japan plus perfumes
in the U.S. and Europe.  A five percent tax on advertising would raise $50
billion a year.  So would a five percent cut in weapons expenditures.

	Collectively we are far richer than we think we are.  We could give
much more than we think we can.  It would take surprisingly little to make a
more joyful, less dangerous, fairer, sweeter world.  All we would have to do,
really, would be to choose to play bigger, more exciting, more challenging,
more deeply satisfying games.

	(Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an
adjunct professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College.)

Kedves Pista!

Lehet, hogy mult penteken esett egy kis ho, de tapasztalkataim szerint
(tobben is megjegyeztek mar), erdekes modon, miota TEMA lett a 4-es
metrobol, feltunobban ritkabban jarnak a villamosok, elsosorban a tervezett
metro utvonalan. De ugy altalanossagban is egyre jobban bosszant, hogy
ujabb es ujabb jaratokat szuntetnek meg, egyre ritkabbak lesznek a busz es
villamosjaratok. 
Persze Te, aki Ladaval kozlekedsz, kevesbe veszed ezt eszre.

Attol, hogy megepitenek a 4-es metrot, nem javulna a fovaros
tomegkozlekedese, a Kolto utcaba sem jutok fel gyorsabban, sot!
par ember viszon szepen meggazdagszik abbol a 200 milliardbol... (ennek
remenyeben hulyitik is a nepet rendesen)

Nem baj, szombattol mehetunk utcara az "I LOVE BKV BERLET 6000 Ft"
jelvenyekkel...

Persze, a Metro jobb mint a mucsotany (gy.k.: auto), de itt nem errol van
szo - legalabbis szerintunk. Azt a rohadt sok penzt ugy is el lehetne
kolteni, hogy a varos tomegkozlekedese erezhetoen javuljon... 
Bar allitolag vasarnap hazank bolcs miniszterelnoke aztat nyilatkozta, hogy
O azert ellenzi a metrot, mert autpalyakat (!) akar inkabb... - hallotta
ezt valaki??? 

Udv: Fidusz



Robert FIDRICH "Fidusz"
HAA/VSS

http://www.zpok.hu/albakor/fidusz
***********************************************************
"Ugy oszd be a csillagfenyt, hogy beragyogja minden ejszakadat!"

"One gentle dose of starlight to be taken each clear night just before
retiring"
					(Leslie Peltier)

Hallo,
mint sokszor-bicajos, en is erintve vagyok. Soet, a 42 eves kisoecsem minden
aldott nap telen-nyaron bicajjal jar dolgozni az OErs vezer teretol a
Krisztinaig (van kocsija is...). Szent oerueltnek tartjuk, mert  - es itt joen
a kuelfoeldi oesszehasonlitas  - Budapest vilagvarosunkban olyan borzaszto a
legszennyezettseg, mint sehol masutt. Ennek foe okait a buszparkban latom,
azutan a varoson meg mindig atengedett teherautoforgalomban, es vegul a
szegenysegunkben, hiszen sajnos a szemelygepkocsi parkunk atlaga sem
kornyezetkimelo. OE az Andrassy uton is naponta 2x vegigmegy, de megvan a
velemenye az ott kialakitott bicikliutrol is, szinte rosszabb mint a semmi.
Ami engem erint, en Frankfurtban dolgozom es neha nyaron biciklivel jovok
be, amikor tuti, hogy nem fog esni az eso ( ez 2x12 km naponta). Ha itt
biciklizem, nem erzem azt a borzaszto szagot az uttesten, mint otthon. Itt
is nagyon sok ember jar biciklivel, es megvan hozza minden lehetoseg:
bicikliutak, biciklitartok, lehet biciklit vinni a koezlekedesi eszkoezoekoen,
stb. A forgalomban is nagyon uegyel mindenki a biciklisekre, valoban
egyenrangunak tekintik oeket, soet. Bar epp most olvastam egy precedens
iteletroel: NEM iteltek el azt a gepkocsivezetot, aki nem adta meg az
elsobbseget a zebran hirten athaladni akaro biciklisnek :  nem uetotte el,
csak elsoebbseget nem adott.......merthogy a zebra a meg sokkal szentebb
gyalogosoke, akik azert nem annyira hirtelen lepnek le ra. Altalaban azert
itt is kocsival jarok, es az emberbe belenevelodik, hogy allandoan figyeljen
-pl kanyarodaskor a lassu forgalomban esetleg jobbrol elozo bicajosokra -
talan pont azert, mert mindenki tudja, milyen bicajjal jarni. Roepke oetletem:
mi lenne, ha a jogositvany elnyeresehez mindenkinek 2 honapig biciklivel
kellene jarnia??????  :o)))))) Erdemes rajta elgondolkodni, nem?  
 
mfG:  Ildiko Zaruba
I-SD Start Informatik
00/49/69/75882664
E-Mail: 

Hello mindenkinek!

Mivel teljes mertekben, meg mindeg nem tudtam meg mindent, 
a szelektiv hulladekgyujtesrol, igy ujjbol e forumhoz fordulok!
Atneztem a http://www.zpok.hu/humusz/ oldalakat,
ahol komoly dolgokat is talaltam!
De ez engemet nem nagyon elegitett ki! :-(

Erdekelne, hogy van-e meg Mo.-on a halon hasonlo oldal, esetleg levlista,
ahol komoly kerdeseket is fel lehet tenni(es valaszokt kapni)!
Mivel nehany kerdesemre meg NEM KAPTAM VALASZT: 

Minden fele muanyagot ujra lehet hasznositani?
Hasznositani lehet a muanyagot egyaltalan?
A papirrol szinten ez! Mind hasznosithato?
Mennyi szemet kerul ki egy atlagos haztartasbol?

Ha valaki segiteni tud a valaszok megadasaban kerem irjon!

Robert GiDa

Sziasztok,
Unokatestverem nemreg Kanadaba koltozott (Balazsfarol, a Csallokozbol).
Kornyezetvedelmi diplomaval es ezen a teruleten szerzett europai (azaz
szlovakiai) gyakorlattal keresne munkat. Az immigracios ugyintezes meg
csak most kezdodott, varhatoan jovo tavaszra kapja meg a papirokat. Ha
van otletetek, hogy Torontoban (ott laknak) vagy altalaban hol erdemes
erdeklodni, kerlek irjatok.
Koszi,
Meszaros Laci