That's not how it works. There simply isn't enough resources to end world poverty and money cannot help it. It would take decades of them spending the money they have now.
Also why should they? It's their money that they worked for. It is completely up to them how they use it. I'm not sure about the other guy but Bill Gates constantly gives to charity. You're just being an angsty prick because you don't have that much money and you're jealous.
There aren't enough resources to end world *poverty* because "poor" is a rolling definition, and economic inequality will always be a thing - otherwise there wouldn't be a need for an economy to move goods from place to place. However, there are *definitely* enough resources to end simpler problems like "human starvation" across the world. The question is whether any defined coalition of influence can be assembled with the power to make the necessary changes to global economic structure - and once assembled whether it can be trusted to do so.
@abel_hazard poor does not equal poverty. there is enough money in both of these mens bank acoounts to bring everyone in the worlds conditions up to a livable standard. @barneystinson i made a statement, it is correct, nothing you said disproves that. Who said they should spend their money doing this? I didn't. Currently all their charitable work is for tax deductions, so the U.S government is funding a large proportion of their "charity". Bill gates gives less than %% of his yealry earnings to charity, of which almost none of it gets to front line aid.
Considering the majority of those people in third world countries would be above the poverty line for less than $6 a month per family, then that's pretty great.
which poverty line? Also stop calling poor countries 3rd world countries. That is not what 3rd world means AT ALL. 1st world = sided with the US after WW2, 2nd world = sided with the USSR after WW2, 3rd world = indifferent. Switzerland is a 3rd world country technically.
3rd world countries are predominantly poor, yes they are Not named classified as such due to being poor but by financial statistics. Coincidenental. Take third world in this context to represent the majority of South American, African and sub continent countries.
but taking them in that context destroys exactly what 3rd world meant in the first place... it's like saying "forget organic... that's not what we meant, the poly-plastics are totally fine".
Also why should they? It's their money that they worked for. It is completely up to them how they use it. I'm not sure about the other guy but Bill Gates constantly gives to charity. You're just being an angsty prick because you don't have that much money and you're jealous.
MATH!