Bernie Ecclestone is worth £2,600,000,000 - that's two point six billion pounds, more than the economy of a small country. His daughter Tamara has about £300,000,000 three hundred million pounds.
When Tamara had £50 million worth of jewellery stolen this week, I suggested that to have that amount of money to spend on 'sparkly things' was obscene.
As you know, I work in the Democratic Republic of Congo on a project I set up 5 years ago for treating malnutrition. Malnutrition has several causes - but the underlying one is poverty.
I wrote on facebook and Twitter:
How can sparkly things be worth £50 million! If I had even a fraction of that I wouldn't need to raise funds for my malnutrition centre. I could probably run the whole province for several years - hospitals, schools and road building - with that amount. First world problems.
... several people disagreed with me, "What belongs to someone else is none of your business!" was the gist of the response. On Twitter my thoughts were accepted more.
So, I had a think about how long it would take to get just the price of Tamara's jewellery by working for it. I wrote:
To give an idea of £50 million, imagine a really high salary - imagine taking home £100,000 a year after tax. Imagine if you saved it and didn't spend any of it. After 500 years you'd have £50 million. And that was sparkling on her fingers and around Tamara Ecclestone's neck.
Just to add, I've never had a salary anywhere near £100,000! But just to imagine someone who had a really highly paid job.
If we imagine that people have a right to be rich, we have to consider people in England whose ancestors came from France - the Normans - and killed our ancestors and stole their land. The Duke of Westminster is worth £13 billion! How did he become rich? His great-great-great granddaddy killed my great-great-great granddaddy and stole his land. His land happens to be half of central London. He inherited it and never worked for it. Should he give it back? Should he help the poor?
I'll explain further.
In the Congo, at the time called Zaire, I taught candidates to Mill Hill Missionaries. I taught them English and about the wider world – the world outside the forest.
The president was a dictator who’d developed a personality cult around himself. It was difficult, in fact, illegal to criticise what he did.
He started off as an army officer who eventually staged a coup to become president. He would do things to become richer. For example, people would mine diamonds locally and Mobutu would send a plane full of money. The plane would fly back to him, leaving money with the people. Mobutu controlled the production of money, so when he needed more, he just printed it. It’s what we would call today Quantitative Easing. It caused inflation of 3,000%! This meant that the money that the people received was soon worthless!
When I arrived in the Congo in 1992, 1,000,000 Zaires was worth £1. Yes, just £1! But it 1985 £1 was equivalent to 10 Zaires. Quantitative Easing had allowed the president to buy up quite a lot of ‘things’.
I set up a lesson with my students. I told them to bring their worldly possessions – 20 things that they had (they didn’t have much). A textbook, an exercise book, a bar of soap, a bedsheet, a cassette, a pen, … just the things they had.
I took some airmail paper and made some pretend banknotes – I called the money "pounds sterling". There were only seven students, and I gave each of the students £200 in this play-money. They were in two groups. For the first hour one group played the part of sellers, the others buyers. Then they switched roles and sellers became buyers. They could set their own price and were encouraged to haggle. The object of the game wasn’t to accumulate money, but to accumulate ‘things’. The diamond sellers ended up with worthless paper money, whereas the president had diamonds which couldn’t lose their value. A bedsheet can keep you warm at night, and a bar of soap can be used to wash yourself, a cassette can give you music … but money by itself can’t do anything for you!
I left them to play shops and returned in the evening. I’d made some more money to solve any disputes they might have. Yes – we do have problems! I asked for £20 for my book and he just threw £10 at me and took it! … and so on. I showed them that I had more money and their eyes lit up. The aggrieved and aggressor were both given money and their problems disappeared with the lust of money. I topped up each student’s money with a further £200 and all was well. Of course, the number of things available remained the same. They were unaware that the money in their pockets had now lost half of its value.
We continued the game the following morning, but this time I showed them that I had even more money and asked if I could join in the buying game. Their eyes lit up again with the thought that they could also get my money by inflating their prices.
A basic wooden blackboard stood in the corner of the classroom on an easel. I told them that I would buy things and put them underneath the blackboard because it symbolised my village. I called my village Gbadolite (that was the name of the president’s village). Each time someone tried to buy an item for £5 I bought it for £10; if it was £30, I gave £60. I soon bought around two-thirds of everything.
And so, they started to see how the president was able to manipulate their lives. The people did the work and produced goods, but the president took the wealth in the form of goods, land, properties and so on. I stripped their world of assets by buying their goods; I left them with worthless money. This is how the rich remain rich and how the poor become poorer.
Those people in the developed world have a moral obligation to help those without anything, the poor, the sick, the landless, because the rich have created that poverty by their actions. Creating wealth is good … but to have the equivalence of an executive’s salary for 500 years work just in your jewellery box must be immoral.
I’ve helped over 3,500 malnourished children with donations from people who live ordinary lives. I run the whole project on about £1,000 a month and don't get a salary. Imagine if I had as much as only £1 million to do my work!
Perhaps Robin Hood was right.
 |
| Tamara Ecclestone Wikipedia |
When Tamara had £50 million worth of jewellery stolen this week, I suggested that to have that amount of money to spend on 'sparkly things' was obscene.
As you know, I work in the Democratic Republic of Congo on a project I set up 5 years ago for treating malnutrition. Malnutrition has several causes - but the underlying one is poverty.
I wrote on facebook and Twitter:
 |
| Some of Tamara's jewellery Daily Mail |
How can sparkly things be worth £50 million! If I had even a fraction of that I wouldn't need to raise funds for my malnutrition centre. I could probably run the whole province for several years - hospitals, schools and road building - with that amount. First world problems.
... several people disagreed with me, "What belongs to someone else is none of your business!" was the gist of the response. On Twitter my thoughts were accepted more.
 |
| Bangles and watches |
So, I had a think about how long it would take to get just the price of Tamara's jewellery by working for it. I wrote:
To give an idea of £50 million, imagine a really high salary - imagine taking home £100,000 a year after tax. Imagine if you saved it and didn't spend any of it. After 500 years you'd have £50 million. And that was sparkling on her fingers and around Tamara Ecclestone's neck.
Just to add, I've never had a salary anywhere near £100,000! But just to imagine someone who had a really highly paid job.
 |
| Necklaces and chains |
If we imagine that people have a right to be rich, we have to consider people in England whose ancestors came from France - the Normans - and killed our ancestors and stole their land. The Duke of Westminster is worth £13 billion! How did he become rich? His great-great-great granddaddy killed my great-great-great granddaddy and stole his land. His land happens to be half of central London. He inherited it and never worked for it. Should he give it back? Should he help the poor?
I'll explain further.
In the Congo, at the time called Zaire, I taught candidates to Mill Hill Missionaries. I taught them English and about the wider world – the world outside the forest.
The president was a dictator who’d developed a personality cult around himself. It was difficult, in fact, illegal to criticise what he did.
He started off as an army officer who eventually staged a coup to become president. He would do things to become richer. For example, people would mine diamonds locally and Mobutu would send a plane full of money. The plane would fly back to him, leaving money with the people. Mobutu controlled the production of money, so when he needed more, he just printed it. It’s what we would call today Quantitative Easing. It caused inflation of 3,000%! This meant that the money that the people received was soon worthless!
When I arrived in the Congo in 1992, 1,000,000 Zaires was worth £1. Yes, just £1! But it 1985 £1 was equivalent to 10 Zaires. Quantitative Easing had allowed the president to buy up quite a lot of ‘things’.
I set up a lesson with my students. I told them to bring their worldly possessions – 20 things that they had (they didn’t have much). A textbook, an exercise book, a bar of soap, a bedsheet, a cassette, a pen, … just the things they had.
I took some airmail paper and made some pretend banknotes – I called the money "pounds sterling". There were only seven students, and I gave each of the students £200 in this play-money. They were in two groups. For the first hour one group played the part of sellers, the others buyers. Then they switched roles and sellers became buyers. They could set their own price and were encouraged to haggle. The object of the game wasn’t to accumulate money, but to accumulate ‘things’. The diamond sellers ended up with worthless paper money, whereas the president had diamonds which couldn’t lose their value. A bedsheet can keep you warm at night, and a bar of soap can be used to wash yourself, a cassette can give you music … but money by itself can’t do anything for you!
I left them to play shops and returned in the evening. I’d made some more money to solve any disputes they might have. Yes – we do have problems! I asked for £20 for my book and he just threw £10 at me and took it! … and so on. I showed them that I had more money and their eyes lit up. The aggrieved and aggressor were both given money and their problems disappeared with the lust of money. I topped up each student’s money with a further £200 and all was well. Of course, the number of things available remained the same. They were unaware that the money in their pockets had now lost half of its value.
We continued the game the following morning, but this time I showed them that I had even more money and asked if I could join in the buying game. Their eyes lit up again with the thought that they could also get my money by inflating their prices.
A basic wooden blackboard stood in the corner of the classroom on an easel. I told them that I would buy things and put them underneath the blackboard because it symbolised my village. I called my village Gbadolite (that was the name of the president’s village). Each time someone tried to buy an item for £5 I bought it for £10; if it was £30, I gave £60. I soon bought around two-thirds of everything.
And so, they started to see how the president was able to manipulate their lives. The people did the work and produced goods, but the president took the wealth in the form of goods, land, properties and so on. I stripped their world of assets by buying their goods; I left them with worthless money. This is how the rich remain rich and how the poor become poorer.
Those people in the developed world have a moral obligation to help those without anything, the poor, the sick, the landless, because the rich have created that poverty by their actions. Creating wealth is good … but to have the equivalence of an executive’s salary for 500 years work just in your jewellery box must be immoral.
I’ve helped over 3,500 malnourished children with donations from people who live ordinary lives. I run the whole project on about £1,000 a month and don't get a salary. Imagine if I had as much as only £1 million to do my work!
Perhaps Robin Hood was right.
No comments:
Post a Comment