keanu gives away 50 million...

adnans

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

fifty million english pounds (around 70 million eurobucks) to the people behind the special effects in the matrix movies.

what a generous person! i was going to put up a remark saying how he should have used the money to get some acting lessons, but then i thought it's the special effects guys in the end that make him look good.

good on you keanu.

adnans

Pugsley

Good on him, they more than deserve it.

(closer to 75million yoyo's btw )

RasTa

Should of gave it to charity

DeadBankClerk

He should have given it to charity.

DapperGent

What a ****ing plank.

Instead of making some real difference with the money (how many retro-viral AIDS treatments in Africa would that buy?) he makes some people already doing well for themselves a great deal richer.

The whole thing is more sickening than him keeping the money.

Sposs

Originally posted by RasTa
Should of gave it to charity

If you read the articule he said he already Gives Millions to cancer research.

Jesus your damn if you do and your damn if you dont!!!!

Saruman

To the muppets who said he should have given to charity... how much do YOU guys give to charity??? Dont say its not the same, you have more money than you need more than likely so do you give enough? Keanu is probably rich but not super rich... thats probably a large portion of his money he gave away!! He is probably not a Billionaire for instance.

patch

Fair play to him..... I've seen him interviewed a couple of times, he seems the decent sort. Now I've more time for him.

mooman_00

Afaik from the article he is basically giving away most of what he will earn from the success of the trilogy to the people who basically made the film happen and recieve little credit for their work. Same as when he gave the stunt team a harley each.

I say more power to him spread the love!................ and money!

Ping Chow Chi

fair play to the fella, he goes up in my estimentation

Tusky

he got 70 million for the second film and gave 50 million away afak , but he gets a " % " of the profits aswell doesnt he ?

anyway fairplay to him, not many hollywood actors that would admit that the special effects team did and desrve more than themselfs

wp keanu !

Sposs

Originally posted by Tusky
he got 70 million for the second film and gave 50 million away afak , but he gets a " % " of the profits aswell doesnt he ?

No I think the 70 Million was the % of the profits.

mooman_00

i think the 70 million is some of the % of the profits, someone informed me at lunch that the reason he gets a % of the profits is cuz he dug into his own pockets (yet again) to help to get the original film out of financial difficulty

yellum

Its his money and he is free to give it to whoever he wants or do whatever the hell he wants with it.

If you have a problem with it then give your cinema ticket money to charity in future.

Smiler

Yep totally agree. It's his money & he can do what he likes with it.

What really annoys me is guys like Bono telling us all to give money to charity all the time.

I think it was Noel Gallagher (who I hate) who said "your all bloody billionaires, if your really bothered by world hunger & drop the debt why don't you get your cheque book out! Your all rich enough!"

Probably the cleverest thing Noel has EVER said.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Smiler

I think it was Noel Gallagher (who I hate) who said "your all bloody billionaires, if your really bothered by world hunger & drop the debt why don't you get your cheque book out! Your all rich enough!"

They're not rich enough to pay off Third World debts, which amount to about $2.4 trillion. Lots of them give do give millions of pounds to charities and give up their time campaigning too. So what's your point?

As for Keanu: What a nice man.

Smiler

Sure they do.

They all give millions each....................

johnnynolegs

have o agree with u smiler i saw Noel Gallagher saying that and it was the best thing he has ever said

i am sure if every single rich and famous person who said they were bothered by 3rd world debt wrote out a cheque for 5 million (and lets face it they can all afford it) then it would put a hefty dent into third world debt

Bacchus

Well I'm sure if all us ordinary Joe Soaps gave a tener each it'd put a hefty dent into 3rd world debt. Trouble is no-one REALLY cares. They say they do, but when it comes down to it we'd sooner buy another new mobile/cd/DVD etc. than spend that money on 3rd World Debt - myself included. i give money to charities if I see them campaigning on streets, but usually only a euro or 2.

Pugsley

Originally posted by Bacchus
Well I'm sure if all us ordinary Joe Soaps gave a tener each it'd put a hefty dent into 3rd world debt. Trouble is no-one REALLY cares. They say they do, but when it comes down to it we'd sooner buy another new mobile/cd/DVD etc. than spend that money on 3rd World Debt - myself included. i give money to charities if I see them campaigning on streets, but usually only a euro or 2.

How hatefully true, afraid im the same tho

Slutmonkey57b

What I like about 3rd world debt is that the celebs touting it carefully avoid the point that dropping the debt will do precicely... uuuh.. nothing whatsoever to help the starving in Africa.

The countries in question were loaned money to build up their economies and infrastructure. Instead the governments spent it on armies and secret wars against each other. (Congo, anyone?) As a result they couldn't pay back the loans. Guess what happens if you "write off" the debt? The countries buy more guns and bombs and landmines. Woohoo! People in the West need to wake up to the fact that very few african political systems give a f.c.u.k about the people they are there to govern. And those that do have to face endemic corruption and nepotism among the general populous for whom family and tribal ties are still more important than abstract duty to state, government, or larger society.

Get a grip, let Neo spend his money on whatever he wants and all you hipocrites can get on with spending their own money on themselves while wailing about the "injustice" of the rich. If you're literate, fed, housed, waged, and emancipated:

YOU ARE ONE OF THE RICH PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
dropping the debt will do precicely... uuuh.. nothing whatsoever to help the starving in Africa.

Rubbish. In the ten countries who have received debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) programme and for whom data is available, health spending has risen by 70% and is now 1/3 higher than spending on debt repayments, whereas previously expenditure on debt repayments was twice as high as expenditure on health. Many, many lives have been saved as a direct result of debt relief.

Source

Guess what happens if you "write off" the debt? The countries buy more guns and bombs and landmines.

Again, you're completely wrong. The above research says that in the countries that received debt relief, "we found no increase in military spending over the period".

But why let the evidence get in the way of a good prejudice, eh?

Africa's got lots of problems, and it could certainly do more to help itself. But war and poverty feed off each other, so to say that we shouldn't do anything to help because they keep fighting each other is to miss the whole point.

Rich countries could do a lot to help end the cycle of poverty, war and ill-health. They could increase aid, reduce trade barriers to imports from African countries, allow them to import cheap generic drugs to treat AIDS and other ravaging illnesses, stop subsidising exports that undermine key African industries, and address the issue of capital flight that is starving Africa of billions every year. But the most important thing they could do is cancel Africa's unpayable and illegitimate debt, for two reasons. First, because it would save millions of lives. Second, because it would send a signal out to those who would support corrupt and violent regimes with loans and to the regimes who would accept them that such loans will not be regarded as legitimate and repayable by successor regimes. Why should the people of Nigeria be paying (with their lives, frequently) for the corruption of a previous regime and the banks who were only to glad to support it?

Spenguin

Yeah, Keanu is one nice guy.

50Cent

baby if ya give it to me...ill give it to u...i know what you want bla bla bla

Busta Rhymes!

Ye world debt is a problem. Somthing shud really be done...no1 gives a **** about little timmy who weighs the equivalent to a bag of sugar when he shud weigh 6 bags of sugar. Its sad. More needs to be done...i dont know why the governments cant help out. I wouldnt mind paying somthing small every month for the rest of my life to help those guys.

But ye, Keanu is a nice guy.

BKtje

50cent: then do it, concern, amnesty all are begging for your money every month...every 2nd month or even every 3rd month.

Why not sign up there. Cancelling the debt (or even getting the banks to stop charging the interest) would help a lot of the countries. Of course some would spend the money on their military's but if they do then i guess you'd have to find other ways to stop them doing that. Even if only 30% of the countries who's debt was cancelled or whatever were able to help their citizens get a better life, wouldnt it be worth it? Would also help people like concern focus their efforts on the remaining countries.

Now back on topic.
Fair play to him, he may not be the best actor in the world but he does seem like a decent bloke.

Spenguin

Have you done anything to help these countries? You can't seriously expect banks to cancel the debt. They would lose a lot of money. I, mean, it would be nice if they did, but banks are too parsimonious and greedy to do something that would make them lose money. Maybe if everyone in the world chipped in to pay it off... we'd be making a big difference. I no like banks.

Q_Ball

He gives millions each year to leukemia (sp?) research cos his sister has / died from it.

Fair play i say

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Slutmonkey57b

getting off topic possibly, but relevant to the "How dare you give money to SFX people and not Africa" complaint.

Originally posted by shotamoose

Again, you're completely wrong. The above research says that in the countries that received debt relief, "we found no increase in military spending over the period". But why let the evidence get in the way of a good prejudice, eh?

But the most important thing they could do is cancel Africa's unpayable and illegitimate debt, for two reasons. First, because it would save millions of lives. Second, because it would send a signal out to those who would support corrupt and violent regimes with loans and to the regimes who would accept them that such loans will not be regarded as legitimate and repayable by successor regimes. Why should the people of Nigeria be paying (with their lives, frequently) for the corruption of a previous regime and the banks who were only to glad to support it?

So cancelling the debt will solve those problems? Nigeria's civil and religious massacres are not caused by First World banks exploiting the oilfields, and to suggest otherwise is idiocy. The exploitation of Nigeria's oilfields (to the potential benefit of the country) depends on financing from the first world, and indeed multinational corporations. World Bank loans issued through its IDA arm to third world countries intending to finance such exploitation of their resources themselves are a way for those countries to try and develop an indiginous industry rather than bringing in an existing multinational. (The IDA is the Bank's 'soft loan' arm which supplies very low interest loans (less than 1% over 35 years) to the poorest countries, but with stringent conditions, again very like those that apply to the old 'structural adjustment' programs.) The stringent conditions are intended not only to protect the investors (without whom none of this would be possible) but to provide some reasonable level of control over the funds that many 3rd world governments are unable (or unwilling) to provide.

A government's failure to use the funds effectivly, or in most cases to divert the funds corruptly, is not the fault of the investors, or the banks. The loan system exists to attempt to make such kleptocracy harder to perpetrate and less of an alluring incentive (since the money has to be paid back, stealing it all and whistling through the wind is not a great option. Stealing part of it still is though).

From the Economist's article "Forgive debt, not theft":

"In recent years, campaigning groups successfully persuaded the IMF and World Bank to forgive some of the massive debt owed by poor countries. Rightly: much of the money was never used for productive purposes; indeed plenty still sits in the Swiss bank accounts of third-world kleptocrats. Releasing poor countries from misused official loans is sensible, especially in return for economic and legal reforms that benefit the poor. But now the NGOs have turned their sights to a different sort of debt: corporate compensation claims for assets expropriated years ago. Here, they are doing harm, not good.
This week, Jubilee Debt Campaign, a campaigning group that had previously brought together Bono, a rock star, and the pope to argue for forgiving foreign debts, scored what looked like another triumph. Its threat of a public-relations campaign against Big Food, the parent of Iceland, a British supermarket chain, persuaded the company to drop its claim against the government of Guyana for £12m ($19m) in compensation for sugar mills seized in the 1970s (and now worth around $1 billion). Nestlé, under pressure from Oxfam, decided in January to give up its long-running claim against Ethiopia for assets seized by the country's 1970s Marxist dictatorship.
It is easy to see why company bosses would rather drop a rightful claim than stand up to a campaigning group. Too often, the NGOs pay little heed to the facts: Jubilee Debt Campaign's press release never mentioned that Guyana's "debt" was the result of nationalisation. Pressing a claim in international arbitration courts may give a company a symbolic victory, but it may never recover a penny. It is cheaper to cave in.
A victory for the poor? Sadly not. No wise company will readily invest fresh money in a country that fails to protect property rights. That is a pity, since foreign direct investments, which poor countries desperately need, have been in decline of late. Instead of allowing NGOs to fight their cause, governments of poor countries would do better to affirm their commitment to property rights and the rule of law, even by letting foreign companies return to manage and invest in their assets.
The NGOs' tactics suggest that they are more concerned about creeping capitalism than with the needs of the desperately poor. If they wish to do good, NGOs should begin by trying to encourage more, not fewer, investments in poor countries That would truly be, to quote the mantra of one NGO, "Justice for the world's poor."

From here...

A more important question-mark hangs over whether the process is helping poor countries in the
long term. Most of them rely permanently on transfers from rich countries. If debt relief results in
less aid from individual donors, they might not be better off. Moreover, if the transfers come in
the form of cheap loans-the main vehicle through which the World Bank currently doles out
money-HIPC countries risk reaching "unsustainable" debt levels yet again. Few people have
thought about the financial implications of shifting the World Bank's resources exclusively towards
grants

An even bigger risk, feared above all by those working at the Bretton Woods institutions, is that
the pressure for speed will give debt relief to countries with bad economic policies. Here the
bureaucrats admit that they are pushing through dubious cases in order to meet the deadline of
20 countries by the end of the year. Pressure from campaigners has helped pushed the process
this far; but such concerns suggest that it might now be time to make haste more slowly.

Bottom line, throwing money (or relieving debt) at third world nations does little or nothing about the underlying problems. (Live Aid raised millions, spent it all on aid, but did nothing to solve the underlying problems that caused the famine in the first place. Only in later years did NGOs admit that economic and social development - teaching the population new skills, providing education, and tools, and training, and the opportunity to run a business... the agenda advanced by of all people the capitalist types that run the WTO and IMF... was a more effective method) For the NGO's to admit this, they would have to admit that while a lot of them have anti-capitalist agendas, they still believe money makes the world go around - which it does. The question is how best to make that system work in favour of third world populations rather than third world dictators. And frankly, I don't see Jubilee2000 having an answer to that one other than "Throw money at it!".

shotamoose

Sorry for continuing to drag this off-topic, mods feel free to move if you like.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
So cancelling the debt will solve those problems?

I didn't say that and you know I didn't. If you genuinely think I did say that, please read my post again.

Nigeria's civil and religious massacres are not caused by First World banks exploiting the oilfields, and to suggest otherwise is idiocy.

Who said they were? You're just dragging irrelevant matters into an argument that IMO you've already lost.

I'm not about to argue the merits of the World Bank's policies in dozens of countries. They are a mixed bag. You're not addressing the argument for cancelling unpayable and illegitimate debt.

The loan system exists to attempt to make such kleptocracy harder to perpetrate and less of an alluring incentive (since the money has to be paid back

By the successor regime. So it's not a disincentive for the borrower at all. So there must be a disincentive to stop lenders lending to corrupt regimes with no prospect of full (ie principal) repayment. There isn't at the moment, but cancelling illegitimate and unpayable debt would provide one.

The first article you quote is about yet another different matter so there's no need to address it.

From the second:

If debt relief results in less aid from individual donors, they might not be better off.

The idea of debt relief is that it is additional to aid, or else it's not really debt relief. If it is not additional the fault is with the donor countries and not with the idea of debt relief.

An even bigger risk, feared above all by those working at the Bretton Woods institutions, is that the pressure for speed will give debt relief to countries with bad economic policies.

So debt relief shouldn't go to countries the IMF / World Bank disapprove of? Note that this isn't about corruption or war but about what the BW institutions think are 'bad economic policies'. Unsuitable economic conditions imposed by the IMF / World Bank helped Third World countries get into this mess. Plus they hardly a disinterested party, seeing as they're significant lenders themselves. As the research I quoted above shows that debt relief has been heaving measurably positive effects, I think spurious murmurings from the BW institutions are hardly a good reason to stop it.

Bottom line, throwing money (or relieving debt) at third world nations does little or nothing about the underlying problems.

Underlying problems in Third World countries include but are not limited to lack of health and educational facilites and staff, lack of adequate infrastructure, lack of funds to pay public sector wages to avoid corruption, and lack of protection for individuals and businesses against corruption and violence.

Debt relief can make a significant contribution to alleviating these, by diverting expenditure away from debt repayment and into the relevant areas. With adequate monitoring, we can see this happening.

Only in later years did NGOs admit that economic and social development - teaching the population new skills, providing education, and tools, and training, and the opportunity to run a business... the agenda advanced by of all people the capitalist types that run the WTO and IMF... was a more effective method)

Debt relief NGOs are constantly saying that these are all very important for development. The problem as I've said already is that countries are spending too much on repaying the debts of old regimes and not enough on these areas. So debt relief will help create the conditions for a growing economy. How hard is this to understand?

Draco

start a thread on humanities about it.

locked.